spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: XML unification proposal

2004-05-31 22:27:32
v=spf2 xml=http://www.schmerg.com/spf.xml
or
v=spf2 xml=http://www.schmerg.com/spf.xml mx -all 

... meaning "if you don't want to pay the price of setting up a full TCP 
socket, talking HTTP (or whatever URL is specified), and parsing XML, 
consider my record to be empty (first case) or 'mx -all' (second case), but 
if you're willing to pay for more detail please retrieve the specified more 
detailed XML record (which, if retrieved and considered, replaces rather than 
supplements therest of the SPF record in the DNS TXT record)".

None of the arguments against XML are addressed by this format, except size of 
DNS records. And, in it's place you've added additional problems relating to 
HTTP.

Finally, until the SPF mechanisms are made extensible (beyond the 'exists' 
record), XML doesn't even have any advantages (beyond Microsoft saving face).

Michael R. Brumm


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>