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

[Mike Easter]

N. Miller wrote:
> Mike Easter

>> ...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!

Here's someone else using the term (that way) in a sentence

"Some other non-routing IP addresses are 10.*.*.*, 192.168.*.*, and the
range 172.16.*.* through 172.31.*.*."
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/security/articles/topten_tips.html

... and again...

http://www.riddleware.com/solx86/nat-config.html  What is NAT? - RFC-1918
Address space - A private network in general consists of IP addresses
especially put aside the purpose.  These IP addresses are referred to as
"non routing" IP addresses and allow hosts not connected to the Internet
to provide connectivity with one another on their own private LAN or WAN,
with full IP connectivity.

One riddleware sentence is grammatically incorrect, but hopefully it will
be understood anyway.

Here's a thread in a discussion which is entitled 'non-routing IP
addresses'
http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-firewall@lists.debian.org/msg00890.html
Non-routing IP addresses - I know that if you are using NAT, you are
supposed to use the private:
10.0.0.0    - 10.255.255.255
172.16.0.0  - 172.31.255.255
192.168.0.0 - 192.268.255.255
These are said to be "non-routing".


To me, the concept is that such address is non-routing on the WAN.

I gather from your comment that you 'pedantically' think the terminology
should be replaced with something better or perhaps 'more precise' would
be a better term.




--
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin