On Wednesday 07 May 2003 14:05, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I do not at all understand the objection to a variable number of fields. In
> fact, we already have them (there's an optional authentication_option on
> the end).
It is a mild objection and I realize that it has been done before (owner:group
field in newsyslog.conf was the one I was thinking of) but what is being
proposed is not the same as having optional trailing fields like we have now.
With or without the auth option, every other field is in the same position.
This change would modify the positions of the following fields. That's the
part that spooks me.
But, as I said, it is a mild objection and I prefer having the CIDR notation
more than I object to the variable number of fields.
Tom mentioned the idea of rolling in names as well. Good idea but he
suggested that in that case the mask would always be left out (assumed to be
/32) but I am not so sure. You can have networks in your DNS and so netmasks
make sense for names too.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
