On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 02:12:42PM -0800, James Couzens wrote:
| > In our case, we would definitely give SPF a much lower priority if it
| > required XML. There are too many other items on the "to do" list to bother
| > with having someone delve into XML or work on licensing an XML parser.
|
| This was also the case with libspf. I personally wouldn't have touched
| SPF with a ten foot pole if XML had been employed.
|
| James
Nor would I. And I am "that other guy" who was wanting to do a C library
implementation (but is waiting for now to see what libspf will have). I do
have experience with some XML, and it is mostly unpleasant.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Phil Howard KA9WGN | http://linuxhomepage.com/ http://ham.org/ |
| (first name) at ipal.net | http://phil.ipal.org/ http://ka9wgn.ham.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_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡