On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 04:24:40 PM Tim Draegen wrote: > On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:47 PM, Benny Pedersen <[email protected]> wrote: > > so in other words: > > > > 127.0.2.0/24 > > 127.0.0.0/8 > > > > gives the same error in spf ? > > No errors, these are properly formed. > > I'll try my best to explain this, maybe something more concise will fallout > afterward: > > 127.0.2.0 as bits looks like: > 01111111.00000000.00000010.00000000 > The netmask "/24" is (255.255.255.0): > 11111111.11111111.11111111.00000000 > > Notice how you can apply the netmask "covers" all of 127.0.2.0 with only > zeroes left over? Same with the 2nd example: > > 127.0.0.0: > 11111111.00000000.00000000.00000000 > netmask "/8" (255.0.0.0): > 11111111.00000000.00000000.00000000 > > Now, check out 207.68.169.173/30: > 207.68.169.173: > 11001111.01000100.10101001.10101101 <<<<<<<<<<<< that last "1" is a > "host > bit" netmask "/30": > 11111111.11111111.11111111.11111100 > > > Network objects (207.68.169.173/30 in this case) should not contain host > bits (that last "1"). > > Malformed network objects: today's piece of esoterica!
In the new ipaddress module in python3.3, having host bits are errors by default, you have to specify that you don't want strict processing to avoid them, so it doesn't suprise me it comes up elsewhere. ipaddress.IPv6Network(netwrk, strict=False) 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)
