On Saturday, November 13, 2004, 4:37:26 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Jeff Chan wrote:
That kind of combination needs to be done by creating a new list on the data side, or special processing in the application.
Or by adding bit 0 on your side for THE one "optimal rule": 85,87, 93,95, 117,119, 125,127 (= same 8, now bit 0 is set)
But that's more than one list (i.e. more than one number...). We probably need a given combination to be a single list, for maximum compatibility.
But don't touch the zeros in 127.0.0.? without warning, it would break my poor http://purl.net/xyzzy/src/rxwhois.cmd :
| if SockGetHostByName( arg(1) || arg(2), 'P.' ) then do | if abbrev( P.ADDR, '127.0.0.' ) | abbrev( P.ADDR, '127.1.0.' ) | then say arg(3) '(' || substr( P.ADDR, 9 ) || '):' arg(2) | else say 'erroneous result' P.ADDR 'for' arg(1) || arg(2) | return 1 | end /* 127.1.0.1 .. 127.1.0.7 for .opm.blitzed.org(1+2+4) */ | return 0 Bye, Frank
I have a feeling changing the second and third octets could break several programs. But that's where the next lists need to go....
Jeff C. -- "If it appears in hams, then don't list it."