IETF Logo Mail Archive

[spfbis] Production rules, was ipv6

Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> Tue, 12 February 2013 14:48 UTC

Return-Path: <vesely@tana.it>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88FCA21F8DAE for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 06:48:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n7aYxEHOgcDG for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 06:48:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wmail.tana.it (wmail.tana.it [62.94.243.226]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C0F921F8CEA for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 06:48:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tana.it; s=beta; t=1360680511; bh=CvLnvn8QsTbVlhJaSt8J2nIEUI8GtVhRsbdwi0wzL/s=; l=579; h=Date:From:To:References:In-Reply-To; b=iQ4ZLVNbqEvoIpDxHHnoQ+WR7YBIdpzlef+ag5jM5gk1VczZ8SqBYI1vsNE/3jOMi 7cp62wEblqGJzOLHWtslBetGHROyYKCG/8BZnH/oNd0up4xbQmZMFMSmTSTCWDlXae gNz7xeYczV/PfOTQkbyTKhhIiXBH7Wm0mtHlHgf0=
Received: from [172.25.197.158] (pcale.tana [172.25.197.158]) (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 uXDGrn@SYT0/k, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA) by wmail.tana.it with ESMTPSA; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:48:31 +0100 id 00000000005DC039.00000000511A563F.00002401
Message-ID: <511A563F.5050900@tana.it>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:48:31 +0100
From: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: spfbis@ietf.org
References: <20130209180439.28612.qmail@joyce.lan> <6.2.5.6.2.20130209144846.0b0129e0@resistor.net> <983049F5325A4B7A8830A7D8F926B60D@addom.santronics.com> <50414866.zTIuQ6drbJ@scott-latitude-e6320> <5119B1CB.9040508@gathman.org>
In-Reply-To: <5119B1CB.9040508@gathman.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [spfbis] Production rules, was ipv6
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:48:34 -0000

On Tue 12/Feb/2013 04:06:51 +0100 Stuart Gathman wrote:
> Actually, even on an IPv4 only host, you have to parse ip6 mechanisms
> and issue PermError for syntax errors to be compliant. Parsing is just
> a matter of a regex derived fairly directly from rfc 3986, so it
> shouldn't be a problem.

Hey, in Section 3.2.2 of RFC 3986 are the production rules "we didn't
find [it] in 2005", as Scott replied to Murray in July (find qnum in:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/spfbis/current/msg01842.html )

We can import IPv6address and IPv4address from there, can't we?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email