Milter-greylist

Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@...> wrote:

> Even if it will not be a de facto, still we will be able to use this
> format in anyway.  However, if DNSRBL will incorporate another format
> in their service, we will need to chase the format.  Perhaps, we can
> support both format with a configure option.
> If we don't want to have a compatibility issue in the future, we
> should disable a DNSRBL query against an IPv6 address for now.

I think we should do that, and re-introduce IPv6 support the day an IPv6
DNSRBL appear. For now the IPv6 code would not be useful for a single
user in the world, so it does not seems resonable to me to have it.  

Of course the day an IPv6 DNSRBL will appear, we'll make the change to
support it.

Anyone else has an opinion on that point?

-- 
Emmanuel Dreyfus
http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
manu@...