Am 24.08.2012 13:18, schrieb Matthew Powell:
On 2012-08-24, at 7.01, Jerry jerry@seibercom.net wrote:
I would personally recommend supporting it. If history teaches us anything, it is that sooner or later, and usually sooner, someone will require that block. Being prepared for it in advance would seem like the prudent thing to do.
I wonder whether it would be better to make the exclusion list configurable.
As I understand it, the intention is to avoid treating connections through a load balancer or proxy as though they're the same client device
i doubt the ip is generally the wrong value to define something is the same client device, there are millions of networks behind NAT out there with a lot of clients usually connecting to the same mailserver via the same public IP and many of them have a workstation beside a mobile device using the same IMAP account
the same device = open connection, nothing else
The assumption that private address = proxy is a fair default
in my opinion this is generally the wrong direction
i do NOT like it when server software behaves different from my private LAN where services are tested than later after making the service public from the WAN