Talk:Reverse MX: Difference between revisions
imported>David MacQuigg m (New page: {{subpages}}) |
imported>David MacQuigg No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
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. | |||
--[[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] 16:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:59, 22 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)