Dallman Ross schreef:
MYPUB = '(0?65\.0?84\.0?78\.(19[2-9]|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5]))'
The surrounding brackets are there to make it safe to use $MYPUB
inside regular expressions: ($MYPUB|$MYNAT128)
You showed me this once before privately a couple of years ago,
as I recall. But I can't remember the case where it would matter.
Could you elucideate, please?
Right, and in this case I was too cautious, because there are no 'loose
groups' (yet!) in the regex.
This is wrong:
$_6 = 19[2-9]|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5]
$_8 = [01]?[0-9]?[0-9]|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5]
MYNAT18 = 192\.168\.$_6\.$_8
and should be:
$_6 = (19[2-9]|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5])
$_8 = ([01]?[0-9]?[0-9]|2[0-4][0-9]|25[0-5])
MYNAT18 = 192\.168\.$_6\.$_8
or defensively even
MYNAT18 = (192\.168\.$_6\.$_8)
AFAIK, the 0? is to fill up to three digits.
Yup. I think the script author's original premise was that some IP
addresses could come in with leading zeros. I suppose some spammers'
could. I've never seen any real, automatically produced (by mail
servers) IP addresses with leading zeros in the dotted quads, though.
Have you?
I haven't.
But there are several ways to write an IP-number.
For example: www.google.com = 66.249.93.104
66*2^24+249*2^16+93*2^8+104=1123638632
So http://1123638632/ will bring you to google.
66=0102, 249=0371, 93=0135, 104=0150:
ping 0102.0371.0135.0150
Be careful with those leading zeroes in other contexts[ ]tha[n]
E-mail headers; some utilities (like ping) will consider such a
numeral as octal.
Theoretically could happen, I suppose.
google: ping octal
--
Groet, Ruud
____________________________________________________________
procmail mailing list Procmail homepage: http://www.procmail.org/
procmail(_at_)lists(_dot_)RWTH-Aachen(_dot_)DE
http://MailMan.RWTH-Aachen.DE/mailman/listinfo/procmail