Michel Py wrote:
Teddy wrote:
But one thing I don't understand: Why should we
(everyone that is progarming someting SPF or CID
related) implement two ways of publishing and
parsing the records?
To avoid a schism that would split the community in two.
Haven't you noticed that the bastardised spf proposal has already
caused a schism?
And if there's nothing
from Microsoft ideas in SPFv2, they'll walk away from the deal.
Oh dear, no xml in dns? How could I possibly live without that?
The number one priority is to DEPLOY
Unless the scheme is sensible, I won't deploy it, so the number
one priority, imo, is a sensible scheme. That was what I thought
we already had.
Personally, I don't like XML. However, my position is:
- The merger HAS happened.
I haven't agreed to any merger of anything with anybody.
This is not something that can be undone without creating a schism
On the contrary, revert to the original spf and the schism ends.
and to those that have not grasped that yet, I say grow up.
We can do without the petty insults, thanks. Either deal with the
issues on the table or remain silent.
- If XML is such the crap that everyone says, it will not be successful
so there's little to worry about as long as there is an alternative.
Surely you can see that the xml proposal raises a big question
mark over spf deployment? If today was my first visit here, I
certainly wouldn't be considering deployment. If what you're
reading here today leads you to a different conclusion, I'd
welcome an explanation.
OTOH, if the market chooses to implement XML in significant numbers it
means that there's a need for it, and I will implement even if I don't
like it.
Sure, that's entirely up to you. I'll wait until the dns gurus
have pronounced on the likely effects of xml in dns in the
bastardised version of spf.
--