I agree
The same "early adopters" who are implementing SPF are probably looking
at IPv6 as well - I know that I am.
As they are both classified as somewhat experimental by the larger
general population of admins - the same people are playing with them at
the same time.
Graham Beneke
Apolix Internet Services
E-Mail: graham(_at_)apolix(_dot_)co(_dot_)za
<mailto:graham(_at_)apolix(_dot_)co(_dot_)za>
WEB: www.apolix.co.za <http://www.apolix.co.za/>
Cell: 082-432-1873 <skype:+27824321873?call>
Skype: grbeneke My status <skype:grbeneke?call>
Koen Martens 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.
Best,
Koen
-------
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
-------
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