Jeroen Massar writes: > On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 18:30 +0100, Philipp Morger wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 16:28:00 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: >> > On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 16:15 +0100, Philipp Morger wrote: >> > > well, you sound like a candidate for propagating SPF in your DNS :) >> > >> > http://spf.pobox.com/mechanisms.html#ip6 >> > 8<--------------- >> > ip6 >> > Could someone with IPv6 experience please provide some input? >> > --------------->8 >> well, check http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/spf/draft-lentczner-spf-00.txt
> <SNIP ipv4 parts> >> IP6 = "ip6" ":" ip6-network [ ip6-cidr-length ] >> ip6-cidr-length = "/" 1*DIGIT >> ip6-network = as per [RFC 3513], section 2.2, >> e.g. 2001:DB8::CD30 > Let's see, thus you have ip6:2001:db8::/32 in your SPF record? I don't > think that is a nice parsable format. Looks very parsable to me. > Should at least be something like: ip6:[2001:db8::/32] then, > otherwise it is quite ambiguous, eg: "ip6:::ffff:192.0.2.0/24" would > not really work IMHO. Why? What are the different possible interpretations that make this ambiguous? Note that the [...] syntax was introduced for URLs, where there is in fact an ambiguity without the brackets, namely that if you have e.g. http://2001:620::8080/ then you don't know whether that means HTTP to port 80 on the host with IPv6 address 2001:620::8080, or to port 8080 on the host with IPv6 address 2001:620::. [...] > When they have solved it, Maybe there's nothing to solve here... > I will add these SPF records of course as I think it is a good way > of at least halting down some spam... Then again most UE I receive > is virusses and then anti-virus reports from misconfigured > anti-virus tools and after that a little bit of spam. All of which > gets taken care of by SA and Clam ;) -- Simon. _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.init7.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
