Re: considering XML

>              SPF                           XML
>
>   easy for lay people to write      slightly harder for lay people to writep
>   easy for XML nerds to write       very easy for XML nerds to write
>   new parsers have to be written    parsers kind of already written
>   less extensible                   theoretically more extensible
>
> thoughts?
The parsing is a fairly negligible component of anything SPF.  What that 
means is that instead of a negligible amount of code to parse SPF, either 
an XML parser needs to be written from scratch or an XML parser needs to be 
licensed/integrated with the SPF-aware software.  Plus, if you're using 
XML, you really need to move to TCP, where XML typically resides.  Then 
you're talking about an even larger increase in bandwidth.
As it stands now, the only "tricky" component to SPF is a DNS resolver 
(Windows, for example, doesn't include a DNS resolver that can be used with 
SPF).  However, virtually all anti-spam software has access to a DNS 
resolver (as DNS is a key component to most anti-spam software).  So adding 
XML to the picture significantly increases the complexity for development.
Given that XML never took off, I personally don't see much of a strong 
incentive to use it.  I remember when I first started learning about XML a 
few years back, and it wasn't the most pleasant experience.
                                          -Scott

---
[This E-mail was scanned for viruses by Declude Virus (http://www.declude.com)]

-------
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?¡