[rbldnsd] Excluding a CIDR range

[Matthew Sullivan]

furio ercolessi wrote:

>On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 10:15:33AM +1100, Matthew Sullivan wrote:
>  
>
>Superexclude should not replace the current exclude, so it should
>be notated differently.  Let us temporarily indicate it with !!
>  
>
Agreed.

>>At this point remember that everyone has their own zone format, eg SORBS 
>>will create the zones with includes first and excludes afterwards.  Also 
>>what do you do if you see:
>>
>>1/8
>>!1.2/16
>>1.2.3/24
>>
>>Personally I would expect, to exclude 1.2/16 from 1/8 but include 
>>1.2.3/24 specifically.... 
>>    
>>
>
>I agree (this is what it does, right?), but
>  
>
IIRC no because of the net boundaries in the internal structures 1/8 
would be listed.  (Michael correct me if I'm wrong please ;-))

>1/8
>!!1.2/16
>1.2.3/24
>
>should not list 1.2.3/24, because !!1.2/16 wins -- it is a superexclude.
>  
>
If you have super exclude yes.

>>seems a reasonable request, but how about if 
>>we do this:
>>
>>1/8
>>1.2.3/24
>>!1.2/16
>>
>>Would this be handled differently?
>>    
>>
>
>I would not expect the result depend on the order under any circumstance.
>  
>
Good, nor I.