John Pinkerton wrote:
Julian Mehnle wrote:
John Pinkerton wrote:
Koen Martens wrote:
John Pinkerton wrote:
Yea - well - while you're all discussing the flavour of vanilla
you'd like, in the meantime take the spf.pobox.com website
*down* to prevent spreading *more* alarm and confusion....
You can't do that, it is in the url of every implementations
default explanation string!
Sure we can - Meng just has to point that url at the *proper*
website..
Yeah, and every installation of the implementation on the planet will
magically change to point to the new URL.
Pardon??????????? Are you unaware of the ability to point a domain
name at a website??? There is no need for anyone anywhere to change
anything - except the SPF Council !!!
Then I misunderstood you when you said "point that url at the *proper*
website".
By the way, what is the current "proper website"?
There isn't one !! That's the *whole* point !!
Exactly, and that actually was my point, too. We can't "point that url at
the *proper* website" if there is no proper website, regardless whether
preparations for a new "proper website" are already being taken or not.
Currently, there is no "better" website than http://spf.pobox.com.
The council is discussing flavours of vanilla while we don't have a
website with accurate information and help. It's time the council
actually did something about this - instead of discussing it ad nauseum.
What "ad nauseum" discussions?
Don't expose SPF to more public ridicule by leaving spf.pobox.com live.
Get a website sorted out, and make spf.pobox.com point to it.
Well, let's see what hosting offers we get from the community.
(I know there have already been some offers in the past, but I explicitly
asked for reaffirmations because some offers might no longer stand.)