spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: ip4-cidr needs clarification

2003-10-26 15:20:19
On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 09:14:40PM +0000, Jasper Wallace wrote:
| 
| Our MTA allowed this, and we where an open relay for 1/2 the net (we caught
| it in about 20mins later when his work was reviewed).
| 
| Given this operational expirence, I vote for 'bits set in the host portion
| of a prefix' to be a syntax error, and ignored.
| 

We already have one validator at dnsstuff.com, and I expect more to
appear; those validators should catch these kinds of errors.

Besides, it would take more work to verify and ignore than it would to
accept, and it violates the idea of being liberal in what you accept.

But now that A and MX mechanisms support CIDR notation, I could agree
with requiring network numbers with zero host bits.  

-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your 
subscription, 
please go to 
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>