Well said. And I as a user concur.
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
[mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of Julian
Mehnle
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 8:26 AM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: [spf-discuss] RE: Forking SPF into The New SPF and SPF1
Ralf Döblitz <list+spf-discuss(_at_)doeblitz(_dot_)net> wrote:
I like the idea of calling them "layers". I will be able to keep the
RFC2821 layer (spf-v1) and anybody willing to put XML
parsers into their
MTAs can use the RFC2822 layer (spf-v2 + cid).
The "layers" thing isn't a bad idea. But the "XML in DNS"
thing still is,
regardless whether it's used in conjunction with RFC2821 or
RFC2822 sender
addresses.
Even if SPFv1 and SPFv2 coexist hand in hand with SPFv1 using
plain text
DNS records, there's no valid reason why SPFv2 should use
XML-formatted
records.
I don't consider SPFv1 something precious that must remain
unchanged until
the end of all times. On the contrary, if SPFv2 has some *real*
advantages over SPFv1 (although I doubt that will be the case), and no
significant disadvantages, I'm quite willing to adopt it.
I'm just saying that I'm not willing to support something
that uses XML in
DNS and mandates receiving MTAs to be able to understand XML.
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Send us money! http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily
deactivate your subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com