Re: Dear Microsoft,

Karl Prince wrote:

> Teddy wrote:
>
> > [snip] 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.
> Not forgetting copyright & licence issues
Thanks and Sorry, I wasn't thinking about this.

> It's now also starting to look like a political disaster, with 
> developers throwing there toys out of the basket (if I was a 
> developer, my toys would be gone as well).
> The inevitable has now happened for a "split opinion" (not the 
> right words) open source project, with fork discussions 
> starting, though without the at least some of the existing 
> project leads that is probably doomed.
> Maybe this is what Microsoft wanted
>
>    Divide and Conquer
Maybe it is that, yes. But technicaly there would be the same 
implemented at the level of SPF1. So with this we would move the war to 
the feature. I don't think this would be a good solution.
I don't understand, why Meng now wants to change to XML. It was a very 
simple idea. A working idea. Have a look to all these tousends of domain 
doing SPF. And now he wants to give up this not perfect but working and 
light-wighted solution.
I don't know exactly the specs of Caller ID, but when I listen to this 
mailinglist it must be a desaster and is untested.
Teddy