On Sat, 20 May 2006 01:09:22 +0200 Koen Martens <spf(_at_)metro(_dot_)cx> wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
If he looks at it, he will find that Stuart and I have evolved pySPF
substantailly since his last release. Unless there are some other bugs,
I
think that for the functions it implements (pySPF does not support IPv6)
it
is almost fully RFC 4408 compliant when run in 'strict' mode.
Is IPv6 planned to be added in the near future? I think it's quite
essential, i regularly get queries (both via ticket system and IRL)
about ipv6 + spf, and have to admit that it is sparsely documented
and supported (eg. in the 'wizard', that awful thing, and in the old
documentation on the old site).
Point of attention I think.
IIRC, the DNS library it uses, pyDNS, doesn't support IPv6. That makes it
tough. The SPF specific part wouldn't be so hard. Not sure how I'd test
it though.
Scott K
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com