Someone asked me to join in the XML discussions here. I come at this
from two standpoints:
1. I represent a large filter vendor (MessageLabs) who filter mail for
over 6000 businesses worldwide.
2. I authored around half of all the perl XML modules.
I also added the first ever MTA support for SPF (in qpsmtpd).
From the second point above you would expect me to be well behind the
idea of using XML here. I am not. If working with XML for over 7 years
(since before it was a Rec.) has taught me anything it is where XML is
sensible and where it is not. XML in DNS TXT records is not sensible.
Call it a judgement call.
To sum up:
- I like SPF as it is.
- I see SPF as extensible in all the right places.
- Don't add XML in just for marketing sakes.
- XML namespaces are not a panacea for extensibility. They are
difficult and add complexity where it is often not needed.
I'm sorry if this is coming in a little late, and I haven't read all
the archives so if I'm repeating what has already been said I do
apologise.
Matt.
________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System. For more information on a proactive email security
service working around the clock, around the globe, visit
http://www.messagelabs.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?¡