-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Wayne wrote:
I, for one, will assume that openspf.org will be unlikely to
immediately fall into the wrong hands, but who knows about a few years
down the road. I don't want to end up in the same situation with
spamcop.net and spamcop.com, where spamcop.com was originally
controlled by a friendly party, but now is controlled by, well, no one
is really sure who controls spamcop.com.
I agree.
I would like to suggest that maybe we can go with something like
open-spf.net. We have all of the open-spf.{org,net,com,info} domains,
so people would need to make *two* typos to get to openspf.org. Think
this would satisfy the desire by most people to select from the top
vote getter, but also the desire to have a well protected domain name.
I would like to remind everybody of an interesting conversation Wayne and I
had on IRC a while ago:
**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Sun Jun 26 14:46:35 2005
<grumpy> William makes some good points about the domain names...
<grumpy> off the top of my head, I can't think of any popular domain
name that has a dash in it.
<Julian> Define "popular".
<Julian> The reason for that is that most "popular" domain names only
consist of one component.
<grumpy> maybe...
<Julian> Many domain names that consist of more than one component do
have dashes, or at least there's a variant that has dashes.
<grumpy> can you name any?
<grumpy> slashdot, sourceforge, freshmeat, debian could all be argued to
be two components...
<Julian> "debian"?
<Julian> I don't think "Ian" is a real component in that.
<grumpy> as in Deb and Ian Murdock (or was it Jackson?)
<Julian> As for sourceforge and freshmeat, you're right. "slash-dot"
would be awkward since it would then be spelled
"slash-dash-dot". ;-)
<grumpy> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/project-history/ch-intro.en.h
tml
<grumpy> (at the bottom)
<Julian> Uhm, ok. I didn't know that.
<grumpy> ok, so name a popular website that has a dash in it
<Julian> But still "Debian" is one word, not two.
* Julian browses his bookmarks.
<grumpy> oh, m-w.com
<Julian> rfc-editor.org
<grumpy> oh, yeah, that's a good one
<grumpy> glossamer-threads.org
<grumpy> rfc-ignorant.org
<grumpy> penny-arcade.com
<grumpy> yeah, I guess there are some
<grumpy> but I had to look in my browser history to find thing, I
couldn't remember them off the top of my head.
<Julian> I don't remember _any_ domain names off the top of my head
except for debian.org, microsoft.org, and example.org.
<grumpy> heh
<grumpy> what about mehnle.net?
<Julian> Uh... If someone asks me: "name _any_ domain name", mehnle.net
wouldn't be it.
<Julian> One rule about domain names with multiple parts is, don't
concatenate acronyms/abbreviations with real words, such as
"spf" and "mail".
<Julian> Well, some do it anyway, but it may be confusing for people who
spell such domain names without knowing what the individual
parts are.
<Julian> That's why all German technical universities use "tu-${CITY}"
instead of "tu${CITY}"
<Julian> ...like tu-muenchen.de. But there's tum.de, because then it's
all a single acronym.
<Julian> (not tu-m.de)
<grumpy> well, I think if we vote for spf-foo.*, we can go grab SPFfoo.*
also
Anyway, I don't like open-spf.org any better than openspf.net because the
"dash typo" is even more likely to happen than the "dot-net typo".
[going with the runner-up, spf-classic.org,] is always an option. Some
people feel strongly that it should be chosen, others feel strongly that
it shouldn't. Personally, I think the short term advantages of the
spf-classic brand outweigh the long term problems with "what if we
release a new version of SPF?" By then, we may have control over
openspf.org. Having both Mozilla.org and getfirefox.org seem to be
acceptable to most people, I don't see why spf-classic.org now, and later
<new-brand>.org in the future.
I think spf-classic is a good name for what SPF is right now. We can
always get another domain if, at some time in the future, SPF grows out of
what is properly described by "spf-classic". So I agree with Wayne here.
Julian.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFC9IqOwL7PKlBZWjsRAo0uAJwLfHed3ZWQD0Aelxtf71Xlm9GtXQCgr6jU
5ZmF6IINpKKRHDe97eTvQl4=
=9c4k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----