> I consider the netmask to be always primary - any bits set to the right of
Indeed, otherwise 192.168.0.0 would imply a /19
Stefan
>> since the user's intent is clearly obvious.
> What is the clearly obvious intent of 192.0.2.8/28 or 192.0.2.31/27? How
> should Postfix guess which part of the CIDR notation is wrong?
I consider the netmask to be always primary - any bits set to the right of the
mask are inconsequential and
On 21 Jul 2017, at 15:50, Matthew Patton wrote:
since the user's intent is clearly obvious.
Not always.
What is the clearly obvious intent of 192.0.2.8/28 or 192.0.2.31/27? How
should Postfix guess which part of the CIDR notation is wrong?
Matthew Patton:
> I love postfix but this struck me as a completely unnecessary failure mode.
Recent releases log this mistake as a warning:
postfix/postmap[2328]: warning: cidr map /tmp/dict, line 1:
non-null host address bits in "255.255.255.255/24", perhaps you
should use "
in ./src/util/cidr_match.c there is this bit of code:
240 /*
241 * Sanity check: all host address bits must be zero.
242 */
243 for (np = ip->net_bytes, mp = ip->mask_bytes;
244 np < ip->net_bytes + ip->addr_byte_count; np++, mp++) {
245 i
