I said that I'd save my feelings about XML and SPF for another message,
and here it is:
While I'm sure many of you have branded me an XML crazed lunatic,
(which might not be wholly undeserved), I actually don't think XML is
appropriate for SPF at this time. My reasons are largely
non-technical:
1) We are far along in adoption and implementation of the existing
design
2) A large base of the community is highly resistant to XML in this
context
3) Issues of wide and fast deployment trump longer term considerations
- We've been living with spam long enough
4) While XML could neatly encompass a range of domain published
information about mail (SPF, DomainKeys, legal policies, etc...), there
is no grand vision of this yet.
There are some technical reasons I think we shouldn't use XML too,
though I don't think any of these would be show stoppers if there were
other compelling reasons to use XML:
5) DNS clearly works best with small records
6) It is very easy for people to hand author and read
7) The current SPF syntax is easy enough to parse (though I still worry
that we need a full conformance suite to ensure parsers do the same
thing in all implementations -- okay, I suppose I should get off my
butt and write one...)
- Mark
Mark Lentczner
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/
markl(_at_)glyphic(_dot_)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?¡