On Sun, 14 Jan 2007, Seth Goodman wrote:
"v=spf1 ip4:192.168.0.1 ip4:192.168.0.3 ip4:192.168.0.5 -all"
"v=spf3 192.168.0.1 192.168.0.3 192.168.0.5 -all"
While this looks nice to humans I dont think the operator should
still be defined rather then make 'ip' default. If you want
consolidation an option is something like:
"v=spf3 ip:(192.168.0.1,192.168.0.3,192.168.0.5) -all"
or maybe just
"v=spf3 ip:(192.168.0.1 192.168.0.3 192.168.0.5) -all"
In fact I'd say that way to get around that ":" is also used
as ip6 addresses separator is also using () to delimit start
ane end of ip block syntax and/or require placing "/" at the
end to delimit end of data that way, i.e.:
"v=spf3 ip:(fe:ex:: 192.168.0.3 192.168.0.5) -all"
"v=spf3 192.168.0.5-9 -all"
I'm not big fan of that, but would agree that use of "-" between
two full blocks is ok (i.e. 'ip:192.168.0.5-192.168.0.9' but
this is really not as much of an issue because most can use
netmasks to identity multiple of ip addresses on their net.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net
-------
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/?list_id=735