In <200506161625(_dot_)09064(_dot_)bulk(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> Julian Mehnle
<bulk(_at_)mehnle(_dot_)net> writes:
Wayne Schlitt wrote:
Ok, we have had a lot of volunteers to provide domain names, and I
think we have some good ones.
However, it is clear that I don't have time to deal with this issue
and I think it would be best if someone could take charge of this. We
need someone to step forward, collect all the domain names, write up a
set of pros and cons to each one (with community input), set up the
voting system, and run with it.
Who wants to do it?
Look, Wayne, we already have a fully-working voting system (CIVS), and a
half-working voters register (we can't just enter all spf-discuss
subscribers into CIVS) which I have been working on sporadically over the
last weeks.
There is a lot of stuff that you *have* to do and few other people can
replace you.
Yes, CIVS will take the part of the "set up the voting system", but we
still need someone to collect all the domain names that have been
mentioned, post the list, write up pros and cons so that people know
what they are voting on, etc.
SPF needs to be a bottom up organization where people who *do* stuff
run the organization. Lots of people have complained about the lack
of an official SPF website. Here is a chance for those people to *do*
something.
Scott Kitterman wrote:
Why do we need to pick? I pointed the a record for senderpolicy.com/net/
/org/biz/info/us at the correct IP and, except for the graphic in the
upper left corner, it just works.
Why not just tell all the volunteers to point their a records
appropriately. Over time your logs should tell us what the market has
decided.
An interesting approach, but it won't work. [reasons given snipped]
Agreed. We need one official domain name and have everyone use it in
its links. Any other links need to have a rewrite rule to fix them.
-wayne