Apologies, which format should be used. I'm not sure if I should revert to the
one from 7489, or some other prior version.
The one that's in the draft now is fine. Don't add the line with f{4}
which is an insufficiently general special case.
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughanno
Apologies, which format should be used. I'm not sure if I should revert to the
one from 7489, or some other prior version.
--
Alex Brotman
Sr. Engineer, Anti-Abuse & Messaging Policy
Comcast
> -Original Message-
> From: dmarc On Behalf Of John R Levine
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
How about:
"(:::)?(([01]?\d?\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])\.){3}([01]?\d?\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])"/>
Testing yielded a correct fix:
"(::[Ff]{4}:)?(([01]?\d?\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])\.){3}([01]?\d?\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])"/>
There are lots of other ways to write
On Sun 24/Mar/2024 13:33:22 +0100 Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Sat 23/Mar/2024 19:53:39 +0100 John Levine wrote:
It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said:
-=-=-=-=-=-
This seems like it's probably legitimate. Does it need to be fixed in the
-bis document?
It's already fixed in the current
