Re: [Exim] why was this rbl checked?

On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 11:30:49AM -0500, dman wrote:
> "combined" to 192.168.0.0/23. Since 192.168.0.0/16 is all private,
> it's really just a subset of the private class C.

?? 192.168.0.0/16 was 256 Class Cs. I assume you didn't read RFC1918 when
choosing the numbers for this network, which tells you rather explicitly
to pick random subnets to minimise the possibility of having to renumber
when networks connect together.

MBM

--
Matthew Byng-Maddick         <mbm@???>           http://colondot.net/