-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Michael Hammer wrote:
On 6/30/05, Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com> wrote:
Right. Consider when we get around to working on spf3.0 after
a huge successful deployment of v=spf1. The installed base will want
to keep up to date on tweaks to SPF classic at the spfclassic.org
site, while openspf.org will be focused on the new developing
standard.
Stuart, This makes no sense. People want a single place (portal) to go
to for official information. This is about branding and mindshare. The
more appropriate way to handle the situation you lay out is:
classic.openspf.org or openspf.org/classic/ (leaving out the www.)
I agree with Michael. We shouldn't have separate sites for different
versions of SPF.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCxUXFwL7PKlBZWjsRAl8SAJ9pNzqHs+P1jm7QTMx1tzcNFxgnywCdFYP0
2BmVACtgLGE8zkjQ4ahKHbg=
=HqqC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----