On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 12:22:30AM +0200, Christian Biere wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I could imagine that due to backwards compatibility someone relies on
> this feature. If not or at least you don't think it's worth to keep
> this, would anyone object if the ifconfig behaviour is changed so 
> that it only accept (inet) addresses of the form 192.0.2.0 or at least
> require one dot? Imagine you do this on an interface where you don't
> know this off the top of your head or at a very bad moment, or simply
> don't your (ok my) failure at all and leave...

Are you familiar with the adage "Unix gives you enough rope"?

Thor