Radu Hociung wrote:
In the example without the mask, the -ip4:65.0.0.0/6
mechanism tells the checker exactly the opposite
Yes, and now I see why -m is unnecessary: There are already
at least _two_ solutions for this case working today.
-1- Exclude all CIDRs not covered by 65.0.0.0/6
-ip4:0.0.0.0/2 -ip4:128.0.0.0/1 -ip4:96.0.0.0/3
-ip4:80.0.0.0/4 -ip4:72.0.0.0/5 -ip4:68.0.0.0/6
-2- "antimatch" 65.0.0.0/6
me.example IN SPF "v=spf1 -include:not.me.example ..."
not.me.example IN SPF "v=spf1 -ip4:65.0.0.0/6 +all"
Same effect as -m=65.0.0.0/6 and working everywhere. Bye