At 11:53 AM 3/26/2005 -0500, Radu wrote:
Once again, the mask would not work as a mechanism (unless it was in
include, like Frank mentioned), because each mechanism can return a match.
the mask modifiers can return a match only after *all of them* have been
checked against the IP. Think of a mask like m=65/6 m=214/6. For senders
in the 214 net, your proposed -!ip4 mechanism would wrongfully declare the
214 sources as "FAIL".
Oops. I thought I understood these masks, but I missed it. OK, so what
this "mask" mechanism really says is, the IP address must match one or
another mask range AND match at least one of the subsequent mechanisms. I
guess this is really more of an educational problem than a syntax
problem. Luckily, dummies like me won't have to create these masks, we'll
just see them in a compiled record, and click the "What's This" button if
we really want to know what they are. Since this is syntax for a compiled
record only, let's not worry about making it more self-explanatory. m= is OK.
Also, I would revert back to my original syntax that allows m=65/6 instead
of requiring m=65.0.0.0/6. Both would work of course, but the simpler
syntax would be legal. This is because I don't understand why that syntax
has to be compatible with other systems. Maybe someone can explain. I
think that as long as the checkers recognize the mask modifier, they will
also know (from the draft) how to interpret its contents.
I like your shorter syntax, particularly since the need for these modifiers
arises from records that are getting too long to squeeze into a DNS packet.
-- Dave
************************************************************ *
* David MacQuigg, PhD email: dmquigg-spf at yahoo.com * *
* IC Design Engineer phone: USA 520-721-4583 * * *
* Analog Design Methodologies * * *
* 9320 East Mikelyn Lane * * *
* VRS Consulting, P.C. Tucson, Arizona 85710 *
************************************************************ *