On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 11:58:12 -0400 "Tabor J. Wells" <twells@???> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 10:50:52AM -0400,
> Richard Welty <rwelty@???> is thought to have said:
> > On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:35:14 -0400 "Tabor J. Wells" <twells@???>
> wrote:
> > > 0.0.0.0 is equivalent to localhost on most (all?) systems.
> > ummmmm.
> > not quite. 0.0.0.0/32 is the ancestral broadcast address,
> I'm aware of that. I was referring to how it behaved w/r/t his mail
> delivery
> problem.
that's fair. however, i think the caveat was a good idea, as folks
shouldn't actually start using 0.0.0.0/32 for anything these days.
> > the use of which
> > is deprecated. many older stacks still respond to it, though.
> Older? Seems to be alive and well in modern day Linux and Solaris at
> least.
> We had this discussion earlier this year on exim-users and IIRC quite a
> few
> people responded that this was the behavior under the OSes they used.
i'd presume that the stack implementors went for compatibility.
the Linux stack and the Solaris stack both, so far as i know, have ancestry
going back into past BSD stacks, and i wouldn't be entirely suprised if the
response to 0.0.0.0/32 dated from there. i don't know for sure, though.
richard
--
Richard Welty
rwelty@??? Averill Park Networking
rwelty@??? Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
rwelty@??? 518-573-7592
