Jasper Wallace wrote:
Not to mention that all the things the community has rejected (XML, new RR
type, kicking and screaming to at least have some adherence to KISS,
microsoft patents), are now firmly back in the mix.
...
I feel like we've just been knocked back to square one.
I completely agree with you. Other than the RFROM (which I think is brilliant),
I'm opposed to major changes to SPF. It's almost working right now, why make
these arbitrary changes?
We don't need XML. XML is neither more human readable, nor more extendable than
the SPF syntax. XML is less efficient than the SPF syntax, which means larger
records and more bandwidth and DNS issues. It would also require radical
changes to our almost mature SPF implementations.
The new RR type is also unnecessary. I've already outlined the many problems
with it in previous messages, so I won't repeat myself on this. There are good
reasons that SPF, Caller-ID, and DomainKeys ALL currently use TXT records.
If I didn't know better, I'd see some Dilbert cartoon forming:
Dilbert: "Our SPF project is going well. The specification has
stabilized and there aren't any major interoperability problems."
Marketing Drones: "We think that now that things have stabilized, you
need to add some edgy, trendy new specifications to keep it fresh and visible
in the marketplace."
Pointy-haired Boss: "Yes, edgy and fresh! I like fresh!"
Marketing Drones: "We think XML and Google should be involved somehow.
Is there any way this can run on a Playstation?"
Wally: "Well, we could require DNS RR types, then it we don't have to
worry about it working at all."
Dilbert: "No! This project will never end!" (starts clucking like a
chicken)
If you don't understand my Dilbert references, I feel sorry for you,
Michael R. Brumm