mouss wrote: > Matt Kettler wrote: >> While daryl's comment here isn't entirely on the mark, it is close. >> Daryl, read the docs closer. SA does accept this format. >> >> Stephan, If you want to do an implied mask to cover a whole, you MUST >> end in a . ie: you must use "10." not "10". If you fail to include a >> trailing dot, SA will expand with zeros, but it will treat it as a >> single IP address, not a ranged mask. > > This somewhat defeats the "minimum surprise" principle. > > In "old practice", 10.1=10.0.0.1 (a.b = 256^3 * a + b), and not > 10.1.0.0.
Really? That's a new one by me. However, SA should perhaps fall in-line with how sendmail does this. In sendmail access configurations you don't need the trailing . (ie: 10.1 would imply 10.1.0.0/16 not 10.1.0.0/32) http://www.sendmail.org/m4/anti_spam.html
