Le 04-01-21, à 15:40, Mark a écrit :
If we are talking about Microsoft -- and I have the nagging suspicion
that
we are -- then please ask them why their .NET platform, while it
heavily
relies on XML in general, also requires XML to be present in DNS
records. :)
I guess you're right about the big player being Microsoft.
It's almost certain that we're talking about a corporation that has an
XML parser allready included in their MUA and also has a reason not to
write an SPF parser. There are not a lot of reasons not to write an SPF
parser, one that would make sense would be to "prove" that XML is
everywhere, like what Microsoft is trying to promote.
If we're talking about Microsoft, I understand that Meng Weng would
want them to adopt SPF because it would assure SPF's future. With 95%
of the desktop market, they can buldoze their standards. With Yahoo
allready pushing their standard, it would be really bad for SPF if MS
would come up with their own too. Even with this in mind, SPF in XML
would really be a bad idea. On the other hand, I wouldn't mind renaming
SPF to "Microsoft SPF" if that can make them adopt it! 8)
BTW, did you heared about the guy named Mike Rowe who started a company
in Vancouver called "Mike Rowe Soft." hehehe 8)
Cheers,
GFK's
--
Guillaume Filion, ing. jr
Logidac Tech., Beaumont, Québec, Canada - http://logidac.com/
PGP Key and more: http://guillaume.filion.org/
-------
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_)½§Åv¼ð¦¾Øß´ë ù1Ií-»Fqx(_dot_)com