[Scspamcop] Re: Possible Error In Spamcop Parsing of Headers

[Tim McGraw]

N. Miller wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 08:43:08 -0700, Mike Easter from SpamCop wrote:
> 
>> ...as they only contain non-routing IPs.
> 
> For somebody as pedantic as Mike Easter about technical accuracy, this is a
> blindingly inaccurate (technically speaking) statement. Would you like to
> tell my D-Link router why 192.168.0.1 is a "non-rouging" IP address? I am
> sure it would be surprised to learn that it shouldn't be routing that IP
> address to the gateway!

I'm going to go out on a limb here. Perhaps it's not routable as far as 
the Internet is concerned? That is what the 'I' stands for in "IP," 
right? I know that http://192.168.0.1 takes me to my Belkin router (hey, 
it was on sale, okay?) not your D-Link router. Perhaps technically 
certain numbers are better called "non-routing gateways," but I know I'm 
not up to your level of expertise.

As far as "non-rouging" IP addresses, it's my understanding that we 
could use more of those!

Okay, that last one was a cheap shot. :p