> >He made the same claim, however, but never backed it up. How are you > >reaching your conclusion? > > > >Because this only mentions A records and IPv4 prefixes? > > > >http://www.openspf.org/SPF_Record_Syntax#mx
> Quick testing: > m...@staticsafe.ca -> @gmail.com account > > Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of m...@staticsafe.ca > designates 2607:5300:60:e3a::1 as permitted sender) > client-ip=2607:5300:60:e3a::1; Correct. The changes to SPF proposed yesterday do not change anything. -nik -- Wer den Grünkohl nicht ehrt, ist der Mettwurst nicht wert! PGP-Fingerprint: 3C9D 54A4 7575 C026 FB17 FD26 B79A 3C16 A0C4 F296
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
