spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XML Poll (Please respond only once)

2004-05-30 11:15:22
begin  Sunday 30 May 2004 19:02, George Mitchell quote:
Before we waste any more time on XML, could we take a quick poll on
whether we want to use it at all?  I request all of the members of this
list respond (once) to the list in this thread, stating simply whether
you believe the SPF specification should include the use of XML.  I'll
start off:

I am opposed to the use of XML in conjunction with SPF.

-- George Mitchell

I am opposed to the use of XML and CID in conjunction with SPF.

Reasons:

 1.) bulkiness if XML (both in terms of memory footprint, and in terms
 of bloat of the relevant DNS records)

 2.) current deployment statistics show that over 18000 sites already
 do publish SPF records, against only a handful that deploy CID.

 3.) involvment of MSFT whose motives are not very clear. Do we really
 want to take the risk of having to pay a patent license to MSFT for
 each piece of e-mail we sent?

 4.) gives no clear advantage. If a domain needs more complex rules
 than can be expressed in vanilla SPF, he can always make use of the
 "exists" macro and a custom name server.


even the co-existence of old spf-v1 records with the new "CID" records
would not be an acceptable compromise, as this would still force us to
support CID in every SPF parser, leading to a larger footprint of all
SPF-enabled apps.

Alain