I dread to think how some XML expert will decide to map the macro
notation into XML. I feel sure that using the current syntax would not
be acceptable.
How about 'exists:%{d3}.mywhitelist.com' as
<exists>
<macro field='current-domain' items=3/>.mywhitelist.com
</exists>
Once you make this transformation, I could understand why people think
that the macro syntax is complex :-)
I'm not in favour of supporting XML for SPF version 1. Once we have a
better idea of the extensions that need to be added, then we can decide
if SPF V2 should use XML. Maybe (by then) the DNS limit of 512 bytes
over UDP will be increased to 2k :-)
Alternatively, SPF V2 might be deployed using the _spf selector and
using XML. Who can say?
Philip
-------
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?¡