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

[Mike Easter]

Mike Easter wrote:
> 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 a thread in a discussion which is entitled 'non-routing IP
> addresses'
>
http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-firewall@lists.debian.org/msg00890.html

> 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.

Here's a commentary by someone who would support that POV pointofview -
taken from a reply at the link I left from my citation above:

// They are not "non-routing" in any technical sense. I route all the
time, for example, between 192.168.123.0/24 and 192.168.124.0/24 within my
private LAN. The Linux router I have on that connection routes just fine.
But if I
sent these addresses out (unMasq'd) to my ISP, they wouldn't get far; I
expect my ISP's routers would block them, if I didn't. //



--
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin