Meng Weng Wong wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2004 at 08:33:48PM +0200, Lars B. Dybdahl wrote:
|
| My opinion is clear: If you like the path of the internet, TCP/IP,
| HTTP, SMTP, e-mail etc., SPF version 1 has the syntax we need.
|
| If you believe in Microsoft Network, CompuServe, ATM, ActiveX, X.400,
| X.500, go for the XML syntax.
|
| If we create a dual data format spec, allowing both XML and the old
| notation, we get both an easy notation (= popularity, deployment,
| easier to understand for newbies) and the ability to extend the data
| format later (XML notation only).
|
OK, what's wrong with specifiying a dual data format now?
We could give receiver-side implementors a few months to
experiment with both formats and see which one they like
better.
As precisely as possible:
If XML SPF records are allowed all sites recognizing SPF MUST
support XML records received. With all the potential complexity
and opportunity for additional errors involved.
This objection to XML is primarily on the MTA end, not the publishing
end.
On the publishing side, XML is a more verbose format that is,
to put it bluntly, harder to read than the base SPFv1
format. Harder to read means harder to write, means a greater
chance of errors and more difficulty finding those errors.
SPFv1 with macros is a toss up, but in network communications
the more compact format wins given equal readability.
--
Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc.
dtaylor(_at_)vocalabs(_dot_)com http://www.vocalabs.com/
(952)941-6580x203