In <009701c4764d$e56d4740$c9006bd8(_at_)jdk> "John Keown"
<jdk(_at_)nni(_dot_)com> writes:
Meng could you please chime in as to whether this is an acceptable form for
a spf record.
I'm not Meng nor Mark, but would be shocked if either of them thought
that 1.2.3.4/24 and 1.2.3.0/24 should be treated differently. If
either of them did, I would argue with them that they are wrong.
Not only does Meng's M:S:Q SPF implementation treat them the same, but
the SPF spec says:
If a CIDR-length is specified, then only the specified number of
high-order bits of <ip> and the IP address are compared for equality.
-wayne