spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [spf-discuss] Re: Which SPF implementation to choose?

2006-08-29 03:34:52
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 10:52, Craig Whitmore wrote:
With /0 you can talk about "all IPv4" or "all IPv6".  That
could be okay if it's intentionally different from "-all".

test16.spam.co.nz          v=spf1 ip4:0.0.0.0/0 -all
test17.spam.co.nz          v=spf1 ip4:0.0.0.0 -all
..snips..
0.0.0.0 can only have 1 netmask (0) so maybe both should be legal  but
something like 1.1.1.1/0 should be invalid.

But 0.0.0.0 is not identical to 0.0.0.0/0.  See RFC 1700, section entitled 
"Special Addresses".

0.0.0.0 with no CIDR mask implies 0.0.0.0/32 - as lack of a mask would for 
any other IP address - which when used as a source address means 'any IP 
address on this host'.  Daemons often bind to 0.0.0.0 to receive packets 
from any interface.  0.0.0.0/8 as a source address means 'an IP address on 
this network'.  Neither form should be found in received packets, but they 
are valid addresses.  I think you need to mandate the /0 suffix rather 
than overloading 0.0.0.0.

Nick
-- 
Scanned by iCritical.

-------
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