On Tue 21 Mar 2023 at 18:27:42 (-0400), Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > me second. 192.168.1.1/24 just makes me confused with 192.168.1.1/32
> > which is a real host address.
>
> Interesting.
> I can't remember ever seeing 192.168.1.1/32 used. In my my part of the
> world, it's only meaningful as a deg
On Mon 20 Mar 2023 at 07:36:41 (+0800), Jeremy Ardley wrote:
> On 20/3/23 02:48, David Wright wrote:
> > > Checking the RFC. To my reading the final stanza is not checked
> > > " The is compared to the given network. If CIDR prefix length
> > >
> > > high-order bits match, the mechanism match
On 22/3/23 06:27, Stefan Monnier wrote:
Interesting.
I can't remember ever seeing 192.168.1.1/32 used. In my my part of the
world, it's only meaningful as a degenerate form: all the syntaxes I've
seen which accept the IP/NN notation also accept just IP to mean IP/32,
so writing IP/32 is just
> me second. 192.168.1.1/24 just makes me confused with 192.168.1.1/32
> which is a real host address.
Interesting.
I can't remember ever seeing 192.168.1.1/32 used. In my my part of the
world, it's only meaningful as a degenerate form: all the syntaxes I've
seen which accept the IP/NN notation a
Le 3/19/23 à 18:51, DdB a écrit :
Wow!
Great hint there!
I just tested it in a couple of areas and found it to be quite useful,
by far more up-to-date and i did enjoy the experience.
Thank you for sharing it.
Am 19.03.2023 um 12:01 schrieb Yassine Chaouche:
In contrast,
a tool like perplexity.a
On 2023-03-20 07:36, Jeremy Ardley wrote:
As for the RFC? It's precise and definitive. My only concern is that
some mail system implementer may 'improve' the RFC and restrict the
acceptable address range to a /32 when they see a non zero final qnum
in a /24
me second. 192.168.1.1/24 just mak
On 20/3/23 02:48, David Wright wrote:
O
Checking the RFC. To my reading the final stanza is not checked
" The is compared to the given network. If CIDR prefix length
high-order bits match, the mechanism matches."
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7208#section-5.6
So in this case
On 3/19/23 03:28, cor...@free.fr wrote:
On 19/03/2023 18:00, David Christensen wrote:
On 3/18/23 16:31, cor...@free.fr wrote:
On 19/03/2023 06:17, Kushal Kumaran wrote:
On Sat, Mar 18 2023 at 07:28:23 PM, cor...@free.fr wrote:
Hello
I know 192.168.1.0/24 is a valid C range for network addres
On Sun 19 Mar 2023 at 17:16:47 (-), Curt wrote:
> On 2023-03-19, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 06:38:41PM +0800, cor...@free.fr wrote:
> >> So,
> >>
> >> * 188.66.63.1/24 is a range, not a single host in SPF
> >> * why it's not written as 188.66.63.0/24 which is more clear?
On Sun 19 Mar 2023 at 19:36:47 (+0800), Jeremy Ardley wrote:
> On 19/3/23 19:29, Jeremy Ardley wrote:
> >
> > In this case of the /24 it gave an answer I expected. I imagine it
> > will take a trawl of the RFC and then of actual implementations to
> > find out for sure.
> >
> > The best descripti
Wow!
Great hint there!
I just tested it in a couple of areas and found it to be quite useful,
by far more up-to-date and i did enjoy the experience.
Thank you for sharing it.
Am 19.03.2023 um 12:01 schrieb Yassine Chaouche:
> In contrast,
> a tool like perplexity.ai is an answer-questionning tool.
On Sun 19 Mar 2023 at 08:25:28 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 12:45:06PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> > #!/bin/sh
> > eval "$(recode b64..data < > H4sIACv1FmQAAzXMPQrCQBAG0H5O8TFEMII/BA3BVF7AXoLFsI5kCdl1d5JC8PCSIuVrnro+gm82
> > QPBVO4aINKtNPoYrU1Z5YZ+RyIkpuNh+sg/TG7wxRpHw
On 2023-03-19, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 06:38:41PM +0800, cor...@free.fr wrote:
>> So,
>>
>> * 188.66.63.1/24 is a range, not a single host in SPF
>> * why it's not written as 188.66.63.0/24 which is more clear?
>
> Because it was written by a human being who made a tiny err
On 2023-03-19, wrote:
>
> Yes, it is just a simulation of knowledge (it can be pretty
> convincing at that,though).
>
> In other words: if you want an answer from it, you have to
> know the answer beforehand.
So the specific answer it gave cited above is wrong? Or did you already know
the answer
Yassine Chaouche wrote:
> Le 3/18/23 à 12:28, cor...@free.fr a écrit :
> > Hello
> >
> > I know 192.168.1.0/24 is a valid C range for network address.
> >
> > but what does 192.168.1.1/24 mean?
> >
> > I ask this just for a setting in the SPF:
> >
> > spf.pinoad.se. 300 IN TXT
> * 188.66.63.1/24 is a range, not a single host in SPF
> * why it's not written as 188.66.63.0/24 which is more clear?
Which is more likely:
- someone erroneously added `/24` when they really meant to specify just
one host.
- someone wrote `1` instead of the more conventional `0` at the spot
On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 12:45:06PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> #!/bin/sh
> eval "$(recode b64..data < H4sIACv1FmQAAzXMPQrCQBAG0H5O8TFEMII/BA3BVF7AXoLFsI5kCdl1d5JC8PCSIuVrnro+gm82
> QPBVO4aINKtNPoYrU1Z5YZ+RyIkpuNh+sg/TG7wxRpHwg/VSXWqbx5LhA6E7Vee6EafPXQld9ofa
> oW0Jq+9xoZo4+gNQ3NCSfg==
> EOF
>
On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 06:38:41PM +0800, cor...@free.fr wrote:
> So,
>
> * 188.66.63.1/24 is a range, not a single host in SPF
> * why it's not written as 188.66.63.0/24 which is more clear?
Because it was written by a human being who made a tiny error. One that
makes no difference in practice.
On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 07:07:06PM +0800, f...@dnsbed.com wrote:
[...]
> For this kind of definition with clear rules (SPF), I think chatGPT is more
> precise than person.
Sometimes. But you won't know which times beforehand. Of course,
you could order ChatGPT to give you the right answer ;-D
C
Jeremy Ardley (12023-03-19):
> So in this case AI got it right.
Try the following AI:
#!/bin/sh
eval "$(recode b64..data <
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 19/3/23 19:29, Jeremy Ardley wrote:
In this case of the /24 it gave an answer I expected. I imagine it
will take a trawl of the RFC and then of actual implementations to
find out for sure.
The best description of the AI is it is informative but not authorative.
Checking the RFC. To my
On 2023-03-19 19:01, Yassine Chaouche wrote:
It only knows about saying things that sound plausible,
not necessarily true.
It doesn't fetch info from the internet,
process it,
then give it you.
It rather generates text,
using statisics.
Don't get mislead by it.
It often gives wrong answers.
On 19/3/23 19:10, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
[...]
Yes, it is just a simulation of knowledge (it can be pretty
convincing at that,though).
In other words: if you want an answer from it, you have to
know the answer beforehand.
I have actually paid for a subscription and have used it for a month n
On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 12:12:15PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> to...@tuxteam.de (12023-03-19):
> > Yes, it is just a simulation of knowledge (it can be pretty
> > convincing at that,though).
> >
> > In other words: if you want an answer from it, you have to
> > know the answer beforehand.
>
>
to...@tuxteam.de (12023-03-19):
> Yes, it is just a simulation of knowledge (it can be pretty
> convincing at that,though).
>
> In other words: if you want an answer from it, you have to
> know the answer beforehand.
Ted Chiang described it very accurately as a blurry JPEG of the web:
https://ww
On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 12:01:19PM +0100, Yassine Chaouche wrote:
> Le 3/19/23 à 11:32, Jeremy Ardley a écrit :
> >
> > On 19/3/23 18:28, cor...@free.fr wrote:
> > > "v=spf1 ip4:188.66.63.1/24 -all"
> >
> > According to an AI version 4 that cannot be named:
> >
>
> I'm new to the list,
> thus,
On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 06:38:41PM +0800, cor...@free.fr wrote:
[...]
> * 188.66.63.1/24 is a range, not a single host in SPF
> * why it's not written as 188.66.63.0/24 which is more clear?
My hunch is that they are meant to be equivalent, as, for
example 192.168.63.42/24, or actually any 192.16
Le 3/19/23 à 11:32, Jeremy Ardley a écrit :
On 19/3/23 18:28, cor...@free.fr wrote:
"v=spf1 ip4:188.66.63.1/24 -all"
According to an AI version 4 that cannot be named:
I'm new to the list,
thus,
I don't know how many people have told you this before
(or not)
but that AI is a speech generat
On 19/3/23 18:38, cor...@free.fr wrote:
So,
* 188.66.63.1/24 is a range, not a single host in SPF
* why it's not written as 188.66.63.0/24 which is more clear?
In the very specific case of an SPF there will be a rule. I assume given
the AI response that the rule is to use the net definiti
On 19/03/2023 18:32, Jeremy Ardley wrote:
On 19/3/23 18:28, cor...@free.fr wrote:
"v=spf1 ip4:188.66.63.1/24 -all"
According to an AI version 4 that cannot be named:
This is an SPF (Sender Policy Framework) record, which is a TXT record
in a domain's DNS settings. SPF records are used to help
On 19/3/23 18:28, cor...@free.fr wrote:
"v=spf1 ip4:188.66.63.1/24 -all"
According to an AI version 4 that cannot be named:
This is an SPF (Sender Policy Framework) record, which is a TXT record
in a domain's DNS settings. SPF records are used to help prevent email
spoofing by specifying w
On 19/03/2023 18:00, David Christensen wrote:
On 3/18/23 16:31, cor...@free.fr wrote:
On 19/03/2023 06:17, Kushal Kumaran wrote:
On Sat, Mar 18 2023 at 07:28:23 PM, cor...@free.fr wrote:
Hello
I know 192.168.1.0/24 is a valid C range for network address.
but what does 192.168.1.1/24 mean?
I
On 3/18/23 16:31, cor...@free.fr wrote:
On 19/03/2023 06:17, Kushal Kumaran wrote:
On Sat, Mar 18 2023 at 07:28:23 PM, cor...@free.fr wrote:
Hello
I know 192.168.1.0/24 is a valid C range for network address.
but what does 192.168.1.1/24 mean?
I ask this just for a setting in the SPF:
spf.p
Le 3/19/23 à 09:53, Yassine Chaouche a écrit :
The A.B.C.D/24 notation can be used to either :
- specify an IP address along with its netmask
See for example this snippet from the output of the ip command:
10:02:21 /usr/share/man -1- $ ip -4 address show eth4 | grep inet
inet 192.168.2
Le 3/18/23 à 12:28, cor...@free.fr a écrit :
Hello
I know 192.168.1.0/24 is a valid C range for network address.
but what does 192.168.1.1/24 mean?
I ask this just for a setting in the SPF:
spf.pinoad.se. 300 IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:188.66.63.1/24 -all"
Thanks.
The A.B.C.D/24
On 19/03/2023 06:17, Kushal Kumaran wrote:
On Sat, Mar 18 2023 at 07:28:23 PM, cor...@free.fr wrote:
Hello
I know 192.168.1.0/24 is a valid C range for network address.
but what does 192.168.1.1/24 mean?
I ask this just for a setting in the SPF:
spf.pinoad.se. 300 IN TXT
On Sat, Mar 18 2023 at 07:28:23 PM, cor...@free.fr wrote:
> Hello
>
> I know 192.168.1.0/24 is a valid C range for network address.
>
> but what does 192.168.1.1/24 mean?
>
> I ask this just for a setting in the SPF:
>
> spf.pinoad.se.300 IN TXT "v=spf1
> ip4:188.66.63
On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 7:28 AM wrote:
> Hello
>
> I know 192.168.1.0/24 is a valid C range for network address.
>
> but what does 192.168.1.1/24 mean?
>
192.168.1.1 is a host address usually assigned to the router. The network
subnet mask is /24 or 255.255.255.0. 192.168.1.0 is the network and
18.03.23, 12:28 +0100, cor...@free.fr:
I know 192.168.1.0/24 is a valid C range for network address.
but what does 192.168.1.1/24 mean?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_Inter-Domain_Routing
--
Regards
mks
Hello
I know 192.168.1.0/24 is a valid C range for network address.
but what does 192.168.1.1/24 mean?
I ask this just for a setting in the SPF:
spf.pinoad.se. 300 IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:188.66.63.1/24 -all"
Thanks.
40 matches
Mail list logo
