Re: [expert] Is this a postfix packaging bug (9.1 RC2)?

2003-09-13 Thread Damon Lynch
On Sat, 2003-09-13 at 01:08, Miark wrote: Out of curiosity, why /10 and not /24? How many nodes are on your network? My network has just 2 PCs for desktop use, one as a web/mail server, and another as the firewall / gateway (running MNF). Do you recommend running /24 even with this few PCs,

Re: [expert] Is this a postfix packaging bug (9.1 RC2)?

2003-09-13 Thread Richard Urwin
On Saturday 13 Sep 2003 7:44 am, Damon Lynch wrote: On Sat, 2003-09-13 at 01:08, Miark wrote: Out of curiosity, why /10 and not /24? How many nodes are on your network? My network has just 2 PCs for desktop use, one as a web/mail server, and another as the firewall / gateway (running MNF).

Re: [expert] Is this a postfix packaging bug (9.1 RC2)?

2003-09-13 Thread Damon Lynch
On Sat, 2003-09-13 at 19:02, Richard Urwin wrote: On Saturday 13 Sep 2003 7:44 am, Damon Lynch wrote: On Sat, 2003-09-13 at 01:08, Miark wrote: Out of curiosity, why /10 and not /24? How many nodes are on your network? My network has just 2 PCs for desktop use, one as a web/mail

[expert] Is this a postfix packaging bug (9.1 RC2)?

2003-09-12 Thread Damon Lynch
Hi, I'm no postfix expert so I don't know if what I found was a bug or not, but in 9.1, this worked in main.cf mynetworks = 192.168.1.0/10 but postfix fails to deliver any mail like that in 9.2RC2, and instead this must be specified: mynetworks = 192.128.0.0/10 I guess it's something to do

Re: [expert] Is this a postfix packaging bug (9.1 RC2)?

2003-09-12 Thread Richard Urwin
The 192.168 address for private networks is class B, and therefore 16 bits long. (see RFC 1918.) Using less than 16 bits may result in problems connecting to machines on the Internet which have these addresses. You would be better off using 10.0.0.0/8 or172.16.0.0/12 which are also allocated