OK, guys, given the way this discussion is going, it's becoming apparent to me that at least Mail::SPF, with the utility executables it ships in a separate binary package, isn't appropriate for the DPG. Naming the source package "libmail-spf-perl" just so it's consistent with the group's established naming scheme make little sense to me. Maybe it is better for me to find a sponsor for it outside the group. As for Net::DNS::Resolver::Programmable, which is purely a library package, let's go with "lib...-perl". But since it's really just being used by Mail::SPF, there probably isn't a big point in having it maintained separately from the Mail::SPF package. Thanks for all your considerations! Julian.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.