I agree with Carsten on everything but the last line.
I may be "nobody", but at least I have the balls to speak my own mind in
this open forum instead of lobbing bloaty notions over the walls by way of
the list owner. No offense intended, Meng. Regardless of my opinion, new
ideas should always be shared, but this concept of "significant
stakeholder" is bunk.
No XML please. Save it for spf2 or better yet, SMTP2 in the year 2069
when everyone can agree on a single secure standard.
-Frank
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Carsten Kuckuk wrote:
# Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] considering XML
# On Jan 21, 2004, at 1:43 PM, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
#
# > A significant stakeholder is in favour of using an XML encoding for
# > SPF.
#
# + It's Buzzword compatible
# + Management likes XML
#
# - Uses up at least tripple the space
# - Parsing the string becomes way more complicated as you need to be
# able to deal with full XML (DTDs, character encodings in UCS, UTF8 or
# ASCII, need to ignore superfluous elements, etc.)
# - Need to include big XML parser libs (injects more errors)
# - Blows up DNS caches on the way
# - Next change request will be to use SOAP instead of DNS...
#
# I guess it depends on how significant the stakeholder is.
-------
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?¡