On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, John Keown wrote:
What I am saying is xxx.yyy.zzz.1/24 does not conform to ip4 address space
and has no meaning. Now if we ant to change the rules then we need to do
that.
I beg to differ. It has an obvious meaning: it is the same as
xxx.yyy.zzz.0/24 or for that matter xxx.yyy.zzz.254/24. In general,
all bits not in the netmask should be ignored (logically AND the IP with
the NETMASK). While pedantic rejection of such constructs might be useful for
a user interface (say a web page helping people set up SPF records), it has no
place in programmatically making use of SPF records.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.