From: Noel Jones (njonesmegan.vbhcs.org)
Date: Tue Jan 23 2007 - 13:17:17 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

At 01:03 PM 1/23/2007, Rich Shepard wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Noel Jones wrote:
>
>>Use what fits best with local policy and what the admin is comfortable
>>with. If he *wants* a cidr: table, fine, postfix cidr tables work well
>>and are easy to use. If he thinks he *must* convert a 5000 entry hash
>>table to a cidr table, that's false. Yes, sometimes a cidr table is
>>easier to use depending on the input source.
>
> I'm the admin, gofer, and everything else. My partner works from a
>separate location; I'm the only employee here. Since these computers are the
>tools I use toward my business ends, I just want them to work with minimal
>attention from me. The former hash: table was a PITA to maintain, adding a
>large range of addresses took a lot of time and almost invariably had
>errors.

Right *nods*. I think the cidr2access is perfect for that, allowing
arbitrary cidr and range input, but I've never used it on an
operational basis (did use it for some one-shot table
generation). Use whatever feels best.

--
Noel Jones

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]