Bad net/mask pattern

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bad net/mask pattern

Norton Allen
I am definitely prone to making stupid mistakes today, but this has me
baffled:

warning: bad net/mask pattern: "64.235.144.00/20"

This is in mynetworks. Is this perhaps an issue with an older version of
postfix that limits trailing bit count to higher values, or does the
stated block cross over an implicit subnet boundary or something?


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bad net/mask pattern

Norton Allen
One must always announce their failings before they can see them.

Postfix did not like the '00' for the 4th octet.

On 4/6/2021 11:21 AM, Norton Allen wrote:

> I am definitely prone to making stupid mistakes today, but this has me
> baffled:
>
> warning: bad net/mask pattern: "64.235.144.00/20"
>
> This is in mynetworks. Is this perhaps an issue with an older version
> of postfix that limits trailing bit count to higher values, or does
> the stated block cross over an implicit subnet boundary or something?
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bad net/mask pattern

Wietse Venema
Norton Allen:
> One must always announce their failings before they can see them.
>
> Postfix did not like the '00' for the 4th octet.

The address was rejected by the inet_pton() system library function.
I have made the warning more specific.

Example:

warning: cidr map /tmp/x.cidr, line 1: bad network value in "1.2.3.00/28": skipping this rule


        Wietse
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Bad net/mask pattern

Norton Allen
On 4/6/2021 11:54 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:

> Norton Allen:
>> One must always announce their failings before they can see them.
>>
>> Postfix did not like the '00' for the 4th octet.
> The address was rejected by the inet_pton() system library function.
> I have made the warning more specific.
>
> Example:
>
> warning: cidr map /tmp/x.cidr, line 1: bad network value in "1.2.3.00/28": skipping this rule
Thanks, that should help. The real trick in the heat of the moment is to
calm down and read the errors carefully.