-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > On Mon, 15 May 2006, william(at)elan.net wrote: > > I think this is ok for community page, but I'm not sure such data is > > appropriate for SPF official project page as its not really about SPF > > or technology developed largely as part of SPF project (which would be > > SRS, SES, etc). > > Ok. But SMTP AUTH is just as essential to SPF deployment as SRS. In > fact, it is more essential. SRS is a work around for recipients that > can't list their own forwarders for some reason (e.g. large ISP > supporting non-computer literate mail users). SMTP AUTH is the cleanest > way to enable an SPF pass for mobile users. (Other choices being VPN and > SSH tunnels.) > > You are right, it was not developed as part of the SPF project. But it > is essential to deployment.
I concur. > I am happy with a Community page, though. I don't think the level of "affiliation" or "relevance" of a planned page should be the basis for the decision whether to make it a community page or not. The most important criterion really is whether the page net- benefits from being able to be edited by everyone who comes by. IMO most technical pages, including the "SMTP Authentication" page, do NOT net- benefit from that. We should simply try to restrict the page to information that is _relevant_ for people being able to understand and use SMTP AUTH in combination with SPF (it's a companion technology to SPF, just as SRS/SES are, regardless of who developed them). Then I don't think there's any need to make that page appear "less official" than the rest of the site. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEab3TwL7PKlBZWjsRAmRvAKCXHfWlZ7J00gdyzw6+D1l79vnQKgCfSGoZ QY/xrKZZC5Gt2O4ryAutv4s= =VXQ6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
