Re: Dear Microsoft,

Greg Connor wrote:

> The reason was, this is to be a merger, not a takeover.  SPF and CID 
> parsers will all need to read and understand both formats, in order to 
> give the domain owners the freedom of choice.
> If it's any "consolation" I think MS gave up more than we did, at the 
> table.  They also agreed to parse SPF txt records, and they agreed to 
> supplement their meager instruction set (pretty much ip4: and mx:) to 
> include ALL of SPF's mechanisms.  Think about that for a minute, about 
> how many mechanisms SPF has and how big of a step it is to go from 2 to 
> all in like nothing flat.  That is a full-on feature set change, not 
> just a language/syntax change.
> I can discuss the technical details of the merger plan, but the details 
> are already published by Meng in the New SPF threads.  The technical 
> details are not even the most important part, in my opinion, for reasons 
> I posted about earlier this morning.
> I understand you are upset, disgusted, feel betrayed, etc.  Sorry about 
> that.  Hopefully it won't hinder you from participating in the SPF 
> community for long.  For now about all I can offer is, "Trust Meng, he 
> knows what he is getting into."
Even if Microsoft agreed to some changes in Caller ID towards SPF, there 
are some things in SPF that are going to change that does not make sense 
or is useless for some people. In the past few hours there where 
different statements of users that underline that the merge as is is not 
the best for SPF. Politicaly perhaps it is good for SPF, ok, but 
technicaly it is a desaster. Here I will list the negative points:
- checking records after DATA is bandwithconsuming.
- checking the XML records doubles or tribbles the MTA code and forces 
in most cases two DNS lookups.
- implementing two different types of parsers forces errors in code.
- implementing two different types of parsers needs more programming 
effort and (if not open souce) costs more.
- long XML records cannot be easily published in a simple TXT record.

Politicaly, yes it is bether if Microsoft and the rest of the world is 
sitting in the same boat.
But for me personaly a ressourceconsuming thing like the new SPF is 
useless. With the old SPF I can reduse bandwithconsuming which reduses 
costs. I wount implement a CPUtime and memory eating parser for XML in 
DNS just for microsoft.com and hotmail.com. These two domains I can 
handle by white- and black-lists. I don't think there are other really 
relevant domains using CID. So why implement XML? Just for politicaly 
reasons? No, I wount.
Regs
Teddy


--
Teddy's Computerworld      http://www.teddy.ch/
Himmelrainweg 2            mailto:teddy(_at_)teddy(_dot_)ch
4450 Sissach               076 383 80 60