On Thu, 18 Apr 2002, dman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2002 at 03:46:05PM -0400, Dave C. wrote:
> | On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, dman wrote:
> |
> | >
> | > I have the following relevant portions of my exim4 config :
> | >
> | >
> | > hostlist not_rbl_hosts = <, !192.168.0.0/23 , !127.0.0.1/32 , !::1
> |
> | Why /23 ? Is this a typo, or are you really excluding specifically
> | 192.168.0.0 through 192.168.1.255?
>
> When I originally wrote that (in a v3 conf file) I was intending to
> have the host be a smarthost for my dad an brother. I was also
> intending to put the win* machines on 192.168.1.0/24 and the debian
> machines on 192.168.0.0/24. As you can see, those two subnets can be
> "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.
Yes, 192.168.0.0/23 is a perfectly valid network consisting of ~ 508
hosts. I was just checking to make sure thats what you intended.
>
> -D
>
> --
>
> The way of a fool seems right to him,
> but a wise man listens to advice.
> Proverbs 12:15
>
>
> --
>
> ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
>
>
--
