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/2005/02/23_irc_log.html.
IRC nicknames:
| csm | Chuck Mead |
| freeside | Meng Weng Wong |
| grumpy | Wayne Schlitt |
| Julian | Julian Mehnle |
| MarkK | Mark Kramer (asarian-host.net) |
| --- Wed Feb 23 22:00:11 UTC 2005 --- | ||
| 22:00 | <MarkK> | good evening |
| 22:10 | <Julian> | MarkK: hi |
| 22:11 | <MarkK> | Are we not supposed to have a meeting now? |
| 22:11 | <Julian> | I thought so, but we don't have an agenda yet. |
| 22:12 | <MarkK> | We really need to address a few things; like Yakov, for instance; we cannot keep that guy waiting for ever |
| 22:14 | <Julian> | MarkK: Agreed. |
| 22:28 | <Julian> | freeside, grumpy? |
| 22:31 | <MarkK> | grumpy is usually here |
| 22:37 | <freeside> | huh, are we on now? |
| 22:37 | <Julian> | Dunno. |
| 22:38 | <MarkK> | I hope so |
| 22:41 | <MarkK> | freeside, have you heard from HSARPA yet? |
| 22:45 | <Julian> | It is now 22:45 UTC. I don't think we should still perform a full meeting today. Let's defer today's meeting. (*sigh*) |
| 22:47 | <MarkK> | Under protest. :) Seriously, though, I am not happy with this; we already switched to bi-weekly. Which is fine; but we need to be there, then. |
| 22:47 | <Julian> | I agree absolutely. |
| 22:47 | <Julian> | 01:09:43 <Julian> I would be willing to move to bi-weekly meetings if that means _regular_ meetings. |
| 22:47 | <Julian> | (From the last meeting.) |
| 22:47 | <MarkK> | yes, I remember you saying that |
| 22:49 | <Julian> | Well, I can understand that Chuck is a bit busy these days, considering his personal life. |
| 22:50 | <MarkK> | Which I can understand, too; but I think we really need to get down on a few things |
| 22:50 | <MarkK> | People might think we're not doing anything :) |
| 22:52 | <Julian> | I do have a few things on my immediate TODO list for SPF: 1. get a new website working (I already have a proposal; need to finish and send it to spf-discuss), 2. get an at-large voting system so the project community can vote on things like the S-ID/SPF position statement etc. |
| 22:52 | <Julian> | 3. Get the project agenda running. |
| 22:52 | <Julian> | Those are my "top 3" things to do. |
| 22:53 | <Julian> | #3 would enable the community to do work for the project in a coordinated manner. |
| 22:55 | <MarkK> | I havr a few immediate items, too: 1): answer Yakov, 2): hear from the executive branch about HSARPA, so we can start distributing tasks, 3): bring to discuss what needs to be voted on (related to item 1). |
| 22:55 | <MarkK> | And 4:) get a Deployment recommendations thingy out as soon as possible |
| 22:57 | <Julian> | Alright, let's formally declare this meeting deferred. |
| 22:58 | <MarkK> | meanwhile, I am trying to get sendmail suppport going for SPF, using the socketmap; I also wrote sendmail.org about the Received-SPF header |
| 22:58 | <Julian> | Motion: Defer this meeting to next Wednesday, 2005-03-02. |
| 22:58 | <MarkK> | 2258u: yes |
| 22:58 | <Julian> | Uhm, seconds first, but ok. :-) |
| 22:58 | <Julian> | Votes? |
| 22:58 | <Julian> | 2258u: yes |
| 22:58 | <MarkK> | 2258u: yes |
| 22:58 | <Julian> | So ordered. |
| 22:59 | <Julian> | Re sendmail.org/"Received-SPF:" header: could you CC spf-council? |
| 22:59 | <MarkK> | I did |
| 22:59 | <Julian> | Oops. When? |
| 22:59 | <MarkK> | yesterday; did you not see it? |
| 22:59 | <Julian> | Oh, that one. Yes, now I see it. |
| 23:00 | <MarkK> | It really looks like the IETF is going to accept wayne's draft; so things look hopeful |
| 23:01 | <Julian> | There is still this item on my TODO list (lower priority, though): Contact the designers of "Authentication-Results:" header and ask for cooperation. |
| 23:01 | <MarkK> | I could do that |
| 23:01 | <MarkK> | what do we want of them exactly? |
| 23:02 | <Julian> | But we won't be in a good position to change the use of the "Received-SPF:" header in the SPFv1 spec... A reworked "Authentication-Results:" header is probably for SPFv2 or so... |
| 23:02 | <Julian> | One moment, please. |
| 23:02 | <MarkK> | yes, better for spfv2; but still, we can already contact them |
| 23:03 | <Julian> | Look here: http://spf.mehnle.net/Council_Meeting/2005-01-15 |
| 23:03 | <Julian> | Look for "Concerning the Authentication-Results: header" |
| 23:04 | <MarkK> | thanks for refreshing my memory |
| 23:04 | <Julian> | _Perhaps_ this one can still make it into the SPFv1 spec. |
| 23:05 | <MarkK> | that is where your new voting system comes in. :) so spf-discuss can vote on matters like this |
| 23:05 | <Julian> | Unfortunately, no one has sent comments on the problems of the current "Authentication-Results:" spec yet. |
| 23:05 | <Julian> | Yes, good idea. |
| 23:06 | <Julian> | BTW, I do have made some first tests using the CIVS <http://www5.cs.cornell.edu/~andru/civs>. It looks very promising. |
| 23:06 | <MarkK> | I think if sendmail is going to object to the Received-SPF header, it would be precisely for the reason that too many 'faction' all compete for their own trace headers |
| 23:06 | <Julian> | I had to make them fix their use of fake envelope senders first, though. ;-)) |
| 23:07 | <MarkK> | some standardization would be good |
| 23:07 | <MarkK> | lol |
| 23:07 | <Julian> | :) |
| 23:07 | <Julian> | But they were very open-minded about it and fixed it right away. |
| 23:07 | <MarkK> | if only everone were as cooperative |