[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matthew.van.Eerde wrote:
If you want to have a full-on layered permissions scheme (where the action applies to the smallest containing subnet) you could store a more complicated hash...
[snip]
I thought about all of this, by the way... And then remembered that
some networks are made of two or more adjacent CIDR blocks, but of
unequal size, or not aligned (mergeable). Look at:
'212.145.160.0/21' => 'REJECT',
'212.145.192.0/20' => 'REJECT',
for example. That is actually the range 212.145.160.0 - 212.145.223.0.
So Patricia wouldn't work in this case.
-Philip
_______________________________________________
NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above
message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it.
Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com
MIMEDefang mailing list MIMEDefang@lists.roaringpenguin.com
http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
