On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 01:53:07PM -0500, George Schlossnagle wrote:
| Besides consuming about 3 times as much space, what does this really
| buy? IMHO 'human-readable' data formats are over-rated when their
| consumers are all automated processes.
In theory, extensibility will be built in.
To extend SPF you need to put an RFC through and spec out v=spf2, which
takes longer.
I am not familiar with XML so could an advocate please give a shout.
If we weren't dealing with 20 year old technologies we would agree in an
instant that XML was appropriate.
But will it be too hard a sell?
Think of the people you know who've implemented SPF. Would they have
done it if they'd had to do it in XML? Assume the XML approach had all
the auxiliary support: a wizard, education, that sort of thing too.
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡