I think you are correct Roy, I have, and will continue to manually code my SPF
records. And if I
wanted SPF XML records, I would have to do them by hand also (I don't have any
XML encoding
software, not to say that there won't be any free ones, but I have far better
things to spend my
software budget on right now).
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of Roy
Badami
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 1:13 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: IETF MARID WG
Subject: Why XML
"Hallam-Baker," == Hallam-Baker, Phillip
<pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> writes:
Hallam-Baker,> The angle bracket stuff is completely irrelevant as
Hallam-Baker,> far as I and most other XML coders are
Hallam-Baker,> concerned. It is like x86 assembly code, I know it
Hallam-Baker,> is there but I don't want to see it.
However the angle bracket stuff is what most mail administrators will
find themselves staring at when debugging mail deliverability
problems.
That's my main reason for prefering SPF syntax; I just find it easier
to read (visually less cluttered) than XML, and its simpler (less
flexible) syntax is easier to parse visually, precisely because of the
lack of nested structure.
Am I overestimating the extent to which MARID records will end up
being written and read by hand by mail admins...?
-roy