On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 09:26:56 AM Tim Draegen wrote: > On Jun 12, 2013, at 5:45 AM, Tom Hendrikx <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> https://dmarcian.com/spf-survey/microsoft.com > >>> indeed... > >> > >> wonder if its not possible with v=spf1 ptr mx a +all for a good start ? > >> > >> what does "Network objects should not contain host bits" mean while we > >> are at it ? > > > > It seems to me that dmarcian tells us that 207.68.169.173/30 is wrong, > > while 207.68.169.172/30 is correct cidr notation. It doesn't complain > > about correct cidr notations like 157.55.0.192/26. > > The "Network objects should not contain host bits" is a warning that comes > from the underlying library used to validate IP addresses and IP networks. > Since the SPF RFC describes this as being either an address or a network, a > warning is surfaced for oddly-formed network expressions. > > If I'm reading this too narrowly, by all means, please let me know! I'm > happy to suppress this the information is unnecessary (as perhaps the > receiving world's SPF stacks simply don't care).
There are implementations that care, so you are right to raise the warning. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
