Sorry James,
Having trouble finding the actual reference, it may have even
been an external document, I will look harder later, but am
somewhat fried from having read the last 24 days of postings in
pretty much one sitting.
I did however find one of Meng's posts about the merge,
[spf-discuss] The New SPF: overall outline
Thu, 20 May 2004 15:04:45 -0400
with the following paragraphs
Meng wrote:
* Meng expects that the vast majority of folks will publish using
v=spf1 notation.
* Microsoft expects that when certain folks start needing new features
that are not expressible in v=spf1, they can publish their records
in XML and all the clients out there will be able to read those
records.
* We'll need to be very firm that client implementations be able to
read both forms.
I'm pretty sure this is earlier than the post(s) about record
precendence.
However, what I wrote in the previous post seems logical, since
the XML record will always have the potential to hold more
information, it should have precedence. Also it seems logical
to recommend (or stipulate) that only one type of record is
published to reduce chances of confusion and aid debugging of
issues.
FWIW,
I don't want the XML record (I had best cast a vote, now I've
had over 24 hours to consider the arguments),
I dont want to go into SMTP DATA as part of SPF1, even if it
needs changes to the SMTP spec to add extra pre DATA commands
and options.
I want SPF1 to be clean (and mean)
Regards
Karl Prince
James Couzens wrote:
On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 03:55, Karl Prince wrote:
published to avoid confusion, and that the XML version has
precedent.
Thats disgusting. I think I read that information with too much good
faith. If thats true, again, thats a disgusting stipulation. Can you
confirm this via posting a reference? Either way I'm off in search of
it, its appalling, and I find it hard to believe our SPF guys at the
meeting would have capitulated to such a thing!
______________________________________________________________
Email via Mailtraq4Free from Enstar (www.mailtraqdirect.co.uk)