This is the recent traffic on the #SPF-council IRC channel on irc.pobox.com. Anyone may join the channel, but only council members can talk.
If you do not have access to IRC, you may view the recent traffic at: http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf-council/now/irc_log.html.
This log can be can be viewed at: http://www.schlitt.net/spf/spf-council/2005/02/10_irc_log.html.
IRC nicknames:
| csm | Chuck Mead |
| freeside | Meng Weng Wong |
| grumpy | Wayne Schlitt |
| Julian | Julian Mehnle |
| MarkK | Mark Kramer (asarian-host.net) |
| --- Thu Feb 10 00:00:01 UTC 2005 --- | ||
| 00:00 | <grumpy> | IIM/DK |
| 00:00 | <csm> | okay... I admit to not knowing much about these but I will listen |
| 00:00 | <Julian> | B. How do we view message authentication efforts underway at the MASS |
| 00:00 | <Julian> | list such as IIM and DomainKeys? Are those competing or complementary |
| 00:00 | <Julian> | technologies to SPF? |
| 00:00 | <freeside> | i got a quick report on IIM/DK. there's an ESTG group which is going to merge the two. jon callas and eric allman are editing that effort. |
| 00:00 | <grumpy> | freeside: Ya! |
| 00:00 | <grumpy> | that is good news. |
| 00:00 | <grumpy> | Eric is involved with IIM? or DK? |
| 00:01 | <MarkK> | is it? It would mean then sendmai is going with DK? |
| 00:01 | <MarkK> | sendmail, even |
| 00:01 | <grumpy> | I see things like IIM/DK/William's thing/SES as complementary technologies. |
| 00:01 | <Julian> | Well, I think they are not the best solution (full-blown message crypto such as S/MIME or PGP are better), but basically, they are not competing with SPF. I think they can be complementary. |
| 00:02 | <Julian> | Any other voices? |
| 00:02 | <grumpy> | I see serious problems with them that can not be easily solved, but that isn't a problem for SPF. |
| 00:02 | <csm> | I don't mind competition it's co-opting that I mind |
| 00:02 | <Julian> | (This also implies that I don't want to push IIM/DK, but want to push full message crypto instead.) |
| 00:03 | <freeside> | i've been saying they're complementary for a while ... |
| 00:03 | <grumpy> | heh... I didn't think we would be holding a meeting at 0000 UTC... |
| 00:03 | <grumpy> | freeside: indeed you have and I agree with your documents |
| 00:03 | <grumpy> | MarkK/Julian: what time is it for you guys? |
| 00:04 | <Julian> | 01:04 +01 |
| 00:04 | -Julian- | TIME Thu Feb 10 01:04:31 |
| 00:04 | * | grumpy lears something new about IRC... |
| 00:04 | <MarkK> | For the record, btw, the SES folks have pretty much come to the conclusion that 'pre-emptively' trying to dea with mailing-list, anticipating changes it will make and such, to try and get matching signatures, is a completely flop (just as I said it would be, in my deployment draft). |
| 00:04 | <MarkK> | 1:4 AM |
| 00:05 | <grumpy> | I agree with that assessment. SES actually looks to be the best to me |
| 00:05 | <grumpy> | but they don't have any big backers. :-< |
| 00:05 | <Julian> | I _do_ have some problems with saying "check both message-based sender auth and IP-based sender auth, and if one passes, consider the message legit". message-based and IP-based auth don't exactly mean the same thing. |
| 00:05 | <grumpy> | Julian: agreed. |
| 00:06 | <grumpy> | However, if SPF fails and you have a lot of *other* evidence that the mail was from a legit forwarder, then crypto passing is probably good |
| 00:06 | <grumpy> | ditto for SPF passing/crypto failing from a known mailing list. |
| 00:06 | <Julian> | But I guess that can be worked out if it is reasearched some more, and perhaps some warnings are added. |
| 00:06 | <freeside> | what's wrong with ORing the two? |
| 00:06 | <freeside> | i just want to understand that more. |
| 00:07 | <grumpy> | crypto replay problems. |
| 00:07 | <Julian> | freeside: I can write a message to spf-discuss about it. |
| 00:07 | <Julian> | It's a semantical problem. |
| 00:08 | <grumpy> | it is trivial to replay a signed message, but that should only happen from a mailing list that the receiver subscribed to |
| 00:08 | <Julian> | grumpy: Perhaps you could also elaborate on the replay problems on spf-discuss? |
| 00:08 | <csm> | I have a suggestion |
| 00:08 | <grumpy> | yeah, we shouldn't be discussing this here. |
| 00:08 | <csm> | it is getting really late in europe |
| 00:08 | <MarkK> | yeah |
| 00:08 | <csm> | is there anything else the council needs to make decisions on today? |
| 00:08 | <Julian> | Well, I do have some time still. |
| 00:09 | <Julian> | csm: Yes. |
| 00:09 | <csm> | if not I propose we schedule the next meeting for one week from today |
| 00:09 | <grumpy> | same time? |
| 00:09 | <csm> | Julian: make your motion |
| 00:09 | <Julian> | I would be willing to move to bi-weekly meetings if that means _regular_ meetings. |
| 00:09 | <csm> | grumpy: yes |
| 00:09 | <grumpy> | Julian: yes. |
| 00:10 | <freeside> | me too |
| 00:10 | <csm> | bi-weekly starting now or after next week? |
| 00:10 | <MarkK> | regular? |
| 00:10 | <grumpy> | MarkK: we have missed a lot of meeting dates... |
| 00:10 | <Julian> | csm: After next week I'd suggest. |
| 00:10 | <MarkK> | ok, in that sense |
| 00:10 | <MarkK> | yes |
| 00:10 | <csm> | alright... Julian is proposing we adopt bi-weekly wednesday schedule after next week |
| 00:10 | <Julian> | Motion: resolution #4 =~ s/weekly/bi-weekly/ |
| 00:11 | <csm> | seconded |
| 00:11 | <grumpy> | 0010u: seconded |
| 00:11 | <csm> | votes? |
| 00:11 | <Julian> | (That's <http://spf.mehnle.net/Council_Resolution/4>.) |
| 00:11 | <grumpy> | 0010u: yes |
| 00:11 | <Julian> | 0010u: yes |
| 00:11 | <MarkK> | 0010u: yes |
| 00:11 | <grumpy> | freeside? |
| 00:11 | <Julian> | Keyboard error? ;-) |
| 00:11 | <freeside> | 0010u: yes |
| 00:12 | <csm> | so ordered |
| 00:12 | * | grumpy has an old keyboard that he could send freeside... ;-) |
| 00:12 | <Julian> | grumpy: Does it have some Toblerone in it? |
| 00:12 | <csm> | so next wednesday same time for the next meeting and the one after that will be two weeks later |
| 00:12 | <Julian> | csm: Yep. |
| 00:12 | <grumpy> | csm: right |
| 00:12 | <csm> | motion: adjourn |
| 00:12 | <grumpy> | second |
| 00:12 | <Julian> | 0012u: seconded |
| 00:12 | <csm> | votes? |
| 00:12 | <grumpy> | 0012: yes |
| 00:12 | <freeside> | ciaos |
| 00:13 | <MarkK> | 0112u: yes |
| 00:13 | <Julian> | 0012u: yes |
| 00:13 | <grumpy> | thanks guys! |
| 00:13 | <csm> | so ordered |
| 00:13 | <csm> | thanks |
| 00:13 | <csm> | all |
| 00:13 | <MarkK> | 0012u: yes, I meant |
| 00:13 | <csm> | ;-) |
| 00:13 | <grumpy> | two minutes until I post another set of logs.... |
| 00:13 | <Julian> | Phew. The minutes are going to take some time... |
| 00:13 | <csm> | night all |
| 00:13 | <MarkK> | gnight |