On Thursday 22 February 2007 11:59, Stuart D. Gathman wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Scott Kitterman wrote:
So, if I wanted an ip6 mechanism for the loopback address, it could be
either:
ip6:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1
or
ip6:::1
Is that what was intended? I'm guessing not and it's another erratum
that's
That is what was intended. What possible problem is there with it? Why
would we want to make SPF records longer?
Just me being confused late at night. Nevermind....
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/?list_id=735