Chris Haynes wrote:
Did I miss the post where it was explained how 16-octet IPv6
address masks are to be encoded and distinguished from IPv4
masks?
Anything working with -include:not.me should work also with m=
and vice versa. If you always use IPv6 and never IPv4 you'd
just enumerate -ip6:whatever -ip6:... and let the rest incl.
IPv4 run into the final +all. With m= it's m=-whatever m=...
For the RR case they'd want ~include:not.me or a mask starting
with m=~ Further parts have no flag, they inherit the first
m= flag. Stuff like m=-1 m=~2 m=3 makes no sense, it would be
an error. The include:not.me syntax is clearer and simpler,
but of course also more verbose and one query more expensive.
If include:not.me or m= don't strike there's an excellent
chance that the complete number of chained SPF records is the
same for both notations.
is it defined what happens if the receiver has an IPv6
address to test, and a mask is expressed only in IPv4, and
vice versa?
For ip4 and ip6 in include:not.me style it's already obvious.
For Radu's shortcuts he has to define this carefully, things
like IPv4 presented as special IPv6 etc. The SIQ draft uses
a simple trick to handle IPv4 a special case of IPv6. Wayne
did the same in the SPF draft:
| if the SMTP connection is via IPv6, an IPv4-mapped IPv6
| IP address (see [RFC3513] section 2.5.5) MUST still be
| considered an IPv4 address.
Bye, Frank