On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Graham Murray wrote:
Scott Kitterman <scott(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com> writes:
Is that what was intended? I'm guessing not and it's another erratum that's
fixed by changing "as per [RFC 3513], section 2.2" to "as per [RFC 3513],
section 2.2.1".
Comments?
As one who currently uses IPv6 addresses, Both my personal and works
domain have SPF records using the abbreviated form of IPv6 address and
these are correctly handled by both libspf2 and Mail::SPF, I do not
know about other implementations. As far as I am aware, all IPv6
text-to-numeric conversion functions handle both long and short forms.
Yes, they do.
--
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