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 <dmarc-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of John R Levine
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2024 1:54 PM
> To: Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it>; dmarc@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7489 (7865)
>
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> >> How about:
> >> "(::ffff:)?(([01]?\d?\d|2[0-4]\d|25[0-5])\.){3}([01]?\d?\d|2[0-4]\d|2
> >> 5[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 it, e.g.
>
> ::00:ffff:12.34.56.78
> 0:0:0:0:0:0:ffff:012.034.056.078
>
> and they're actually IPv6 addresses. Just take it out, if nobody has tried
> to use
> this form in the past decade, they won't use it now.
>
> > Please take my pull request.
>
> Please take out the grammar change.
>
> Regards,
> John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please
> consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://jl.ly__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!GrQN5Qa27kbjTdAl8T
> v9N3x0TKJwgntlZNJu0MEv_JDN0Gg6YDL6eEv4lISkNj27tfirjRuQ0seUN9tU$
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc__;!!C
> Ql3mcHX2A!GrQN5Qa27kbjTdAl8Tv9N3x0TKJwgntlZNJu0MEv_JDN0Gg6YDL6eEv
> 4lISkNj27tfirjRuQ0vfo69EU$
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
