-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
John A. Martin wrote:
> [ http://new.openspf.org/Introduction ]
>
> At the end of the Example Policy section would it be nice to have a
> link to 'tester' <http://www.kitterman.com/spf/validate.html>?
We do have such a link (on the "Tools" page[1]), but probably not on the
intro page, which is merely meant to introduce the concept and provide
pointers to further reading material. Perhaps we should have a link to
the tools page on the intro page, though.
> Should the word 'specification' or 'rfc' occur at the beginning of the
> "Solution" section so the impatient can see clearly how to cut to the
> chase?
It'll be on the front page ("Project Overview"), that should be best for
the impatient. Those who are ready to deal with the spec aren't likely to
spend too much time on the intro page anyway.
> Do you mean to have a link on this page, vision, that requires a name
> and password? Is that a welcoming gesture for your intended audience?
I know what you mean. That page does not exist yet, that's why the link is
displayed in red. I'll remove the sentence containing the link
temporarily until the "Vision" page has been written.
> Hmm.. stretching your request to include the linked to page at
> <http://new.openspf.org/Implementations>, wouldn't it be nice if, for
> each implementation, something like the following were given?
>
> o By default complies with rfc4408
> o Can be optioned to comply with rfc4408
> o Does not comply with rfc4408
This is already part of the project agenda[2] (item #4). To that end, it
would be most useful to create an RFC-compliant test suite first (item
#3). Stuart Gathman intends to coordinate the efforts.
> Maybe that should wait until Mail::SPF so that the reference
> implementation can be designated to be compliant. :)
I plan Mail::SPF to comply with the test suite, above everything else. I
guess I'll be working with Stuart and Scott on the test suite.
> Also on a linked to page, <http://new.openspf.org/Specifications>, I
> would suggest dropping the word _final_ from the heading: "The final
> SPFv1 specification: RFC 4408". This is very subjective and I cannot
> give a clear rationale for the change except perhaps that omitting an
> unnecessary qualifier is stronger than giving an unnecessary
> qualifier. RFC 4408 is _the_ specification, right?
Well, there have been many SPFv1 specs before the RFC, and this is a widely
known fact. So I think we should make a point of the fact that this is
the final SPFv1 spec.
> At the beginning of the paragraph I would say: "This is the official
> specification ...". If one feels compelled to put something in place
> of "final" in the heading, try "official" there also. (final <-
> official maybe also at the end of the second paragraph.)
What do others think about that?
> I guess it seems to me that the tendency throughout the site to stress
> and explain the (painful) history gives a tone of being rather
> tentative (or defensive).
Interesting point. On which pages do you observe that tendency the most?
Thanks for all your feedback, John!
References:
1. http://new.openspf.org/Tools
2. http://new.openspf.org/Project_Agenda
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEYeA4wL7PKlBZWjsRAk97AJsHuzPZ+FfIIcn58Rg4rz3PO/zpZwCg+mut
7fTCjBubNdrsQQCRUP3Z8LA=
=khHa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
