In <42BEDDBF(_dot_)2000002(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com> johnp
<johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com> writes:
Final list of Domain Names available to the SPF project.
There hasn't been very much discussion on the pros and cons of the
various domain names.
email-spf.{com,net,org}
emailspf.{com,net,org}
mail-spf.{com,net,org}
mailspf.{com,net,org}
I like these, although I like the email variations slightly better.
I haven't, however, heard many people naturally talk about "email SPF"
or use it in a brand-type way. There are lots of google hits for
"email SPF" and "SPF mail", and such, but the references don't seem to
be for the combined, two-word term.
open-spf.com JohnP pledged
open-spf.net JohnP pledged
open-spf.org JohnP pledged
openspf.com JohnP pledged
openspf.net JohnP pledged
openspf.org James pledged
The "open" prefix for project names has been used a lot and makes it
clear that SPF is an open standard. I think it makes a good brand
name. Still, I haven't heard people use this term very much and google
shows very few hits on it.
sender-policy.*
senderpolicy.*
I don't much like these because they leave off the "framework" part of
SPF. Worse, the complete "senderpolicyframework" ones appear to be
unavailable.
spf.pobox.com Meng pledged
I don't like this one or, for that matter, spf.schlitt.net, or
spf.mehnle.net. I don't think the SPF project should be a subdomain
of an unrelated domain.
spf-classic.* Wayne pledged
I actually like this one and not just because I happen to be the
domain owner[*]. I think people *are* using SPF-classic as a brand name,
and have been for quite a while now. I think the term "SPF-classic"
has stuck because it accurately portrays the idea that what we are
promoting is the original SPF before it got mixed up on the MARID
fiasco.
The biggest negative I've heard about it is that it may not be a good
name if/when we come out with an update to SPF. However, I suspect
that we will have to be dealing with "Sender ID" and it's use of "SPF"
records for many years to come. I don't think adding a new version
number to "SPF-classic" is all that bad. We could call it
"SPF-classic version 2", or "SPF-classic version 3", or
"SPF-classic-next-generation".
I guess my point is that besides the term "SPF", I think "SPF-classic"
has the strongest mind share outside of the SPF community and the
short-term advantage of using it will be very important. We have
already changed the name of "SPF" from "Sender Permitted From" to
"Sender Policy Framework", and gone on to promote "SPF-classic". I
think we need to build on what we have rather than cause more market
confusion by switching brand names.
Ok, this view may be somewhat biased by my past experience. I once
was the part owner of a CAD/CAM software company. Its original
product was the "Steel Detailing System", aka SDS. Before I joined
the company, the second version came out, and was widely called SDS/2.
By the time version three came out, the term "SDS/2" had stuck and
became the brand name. The company is now up to SDS/2 v6 or so.
Almost no one thinks that this name, with two version numbers, is at
all strange, SDS/2 has the mind share of that area of the market.
[*] I actually picked up the spf-classic.* and unified-spf.* domains
back when there was some dispute about using libspf2.*. I asked
Meng for permission before I snarfed them. Also, while the term
"SPF-classic" appears in the SPF-classic I-D, it was MarkL who
put it there.
spf-help.com JohnP pledged
spf-help.net JohnP pledged
spf-help.org JohnP pledged
spfhelp.com JohnP pledged
spfhelp.net JohnP pledged
spfhelp.org JohnP pledged
I don't much like these names for the main SPF website, but they might
be useful in conjunction with the spf-help mailing list.
spfv-1.*
v-spf1.*
I think these have worse problems than the spf-classic name, and if we
were going to choose anything along these lines, I would go for
spfv1.*
The following sets of domain names are only partially available, or
not available at all.
I don't think it would be wise to adopt any of these that already have
some that aren't available to us. I also don't much like the domain
names that aren't in .org
-wayne