Tim Meadowcroft wrote:
v=spf2 xml=http://www.schmerg.com/spf.xml mx -all
This way you get the best of both worlds -
let the 'market(s)' decide how much they want XML...
This is the best suggestion I have heard so far.
It does require developing two standards (spf2 and XML) but having both
of them available is the only way to let the market decide which one it
will adopt.
This scheme answers the big question: will the flexibility of XML be
required or not in the future. If no, people will likely stick with
spf2. If yes, they will naturally move to XML. And it is a reasonable
compromise for the large majority that does not want to see XML in SPF
records.
Michel.