Talk:Reverse MX: Difference between revisions
imported>David MacQuigg No edit summary |
imported>David MacQuigg No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Another worry is that we have to be careful about getting partisan. I would not used Microsoft's name, except in the most factual, neutral context. You might want to think about changing the section heading under "Reasons for failure" from "SPF and Microsoft's attitudes" to "Competing protocols" or "Commercial pressures". Let the facts speak for themselves. Readers getting down to this level in our "Email system" cluster will be very capable of drawing their own conclusions. | Another worry is that we have to be careful about getting partisan. I would not used Microsoft's name, except in the most factual, neutral context. You might want to think about changing the section heading under "Reasons for failure" from "SPF and Microsoft's attitudes" to "Competing protocols" or "Commercial pressures". Let the facts speak for themselves. Readers getting down to this level in our "Email system" cluster will be very capable of drawing their own conclusions. | ||
This is a bit of technology history I find fascinating, and I hope we can do a good job on it. It addresses not just what happened four years ago with the failure of one proposal, but what is wrong with our email system today. | This is a bit of technology history I find fascinating, and I hope we can do a good job on it. It addresses not just what happened four years ago with the failure of one proposal, but what is wrong with our email system today.<br /> | ||
--[[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] 16:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC) | --[[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] 16:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
Hadmut, I just read the first draft of your article, and my worry is confirmed. The article needs to be shorter. See the article [[Sender_Policy_Framework]] for an example, and the articles on other authentication protocols under [[Email_authentication/Related_Articles]].<br /> | |||
I also worry that we may have a problem with the CZ policy on self-promotion. I just got a note from one of the other editors who read your first draft and had this concern about what he read. It is sometimes difficult to separate good writing from self-promotion, especially when an author is writing on a technology he helped develop. Take a look at these articles for guidance: - - - [[CZ:Policy on Self-Promotion]] - - - [[CZ:Neutrality Policy]] | |||
I know that writing a short article may be more difficult than a long one, and I don't want to add any more difficulty to your task. If you prefer, just continue your original plan, and get all the facts on paper, then I will write a proposed distillation of the most important and fundamental points. <br />--[[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] 12:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:38, 23 November 2009
The outline looks good. I worry that the article may get too long, however. Use the references and links to external articles whenever you can to defer discussion of details. What we need here is a summary that will interest students and others who are not expert in email systems. I moved the link you added on the main page to the External Links page, and put it in proper format, with an annotation, as recommended by CZ.
Another worry is that we have to be careful about getting partisan. I would not used Microsoft's name, except in the most factual, neutral context. You might want to think about changing the section heading under "Reasons for failure" from "SPF and Microsoft's attitudes" to "Competing protocols" or "Commercial pressures". Let the facts speak for themselves. Readers getting down to this level in our "Email system" cluster will be very capable of drawing their own conclusions.
This is a bit of technology history I find fascinating, and I hope we can do a good job on it. It addresses not just what happened four years ago with the failure of one proposal, but what is wrong with our email system today.
--David MacQuigg 16:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Hadmut, I just read the first draft of your article, and my worry is confirmed. The article needs to be shorter. See the article Sender_Policy_Framework for an example, and the articles on other authentication protocols under Email_authentication/Related_Articles.
I also worry that we may have a problem with the CZ policy on self-promotion. I just got a note from one of the other editors who read your first draft and had this concern about what he read. It is sometimes difficult to separate good writing from self-promotion, especially when an author is writing on a technology he helped develop. Take a look at these articles for guidance: - - - CZ:Policy on Self-Promotion - - - CZ:Neutrality Policy
I know that writing a short article may be more difficult than a long one, and I don't want to add any more difficulty to your task. If you prefer, just continue your original plan, and get all the facts on paper, then I will write a proposed distillation of the most important and fundamental points.
--David MacQuigg 12:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)