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/2005/03/02_irc_log.html.

IRC nicknames:
csmChuck Mead
freesideMeng Weng Wong
grumpyWayne Schlitt
JulianJulian Mehnle
MarkKMark Kramer (asarian-host.net)

--- Wed Mar 2 21:56:19 UTC 2005 ---
21:56*grumpy pokes his nose in
21:56<MarkK>good evening; the bot is back :)
21:56<grumpy>s/bot/grumpy/
21:56<Julian>Wee, {0pm3} is alive!
21:56<grumpy>been away for a while...
21:56<grumpy>sorry I've been out of contact.
21:57<Julian>grumpy: What happened?
21:57*grumpy has close to 2 weeks of mailing list traffic to catch up on.
21:57<grumpy>family stuff.
21:57<MarkK>I am glad we are here; we really need to address a few issues
21:59<MarkK>especially the website issue, I would say; the urgency for that seems to increase
21:59<grumpy>were there ever minutes published for the last meeting?
21:59*grumpy decides to do some pre-reading
22:00<Julian>grumpy: Yeah, of course. :)
22:00<grumpy>the meeting does start -35 seconds ago, right?
22:00<Julian>http://spf.mehnle.net/Council_Meeting/2005-02-09
22:01<Julian>grumpy: Yeah. But let's wait for Chuck. He wanted to be here in a few minutes.
22:01<grumpy>and Meng?
22:01<Julian>Dunno.
22:02<Julian>I talked to him on #spf an hour ago.
22:03<MarkK>I *really* want to hear from Meng, by now; honestly, a lot depends on him; HSARPA, for one; but also, he is the only one with access to pobox.com. I mean, we can talk a blue streak on spf-discuss on changing websites URLs, but without him nothing goes.
22:04<Julian>MarkK: Well, we _can_ change URLs without him. But I don't think we should do this without him, and we also cannot administrate spf.pobox.com DNS without him.
22:06<grumpy>did anyone know that you can use \[...] in domain names to create domains with binary data in them?
22:06<grumpy>(rfc2673)
22:06<Julian>Depends on the DNS server, I guess. AFAIK binary data in domain labels is generally allowed, isn't it?
22:06<MarkK>A simply RedirectPermanent directive would suffice; I do not think ppl should have to mess with their DNS
22:07<Julian>MarkK: What people?
22:07<Julian>All: Have you read my draft response to Yakov?
22:08<MarkK>Yes, I have; I thought it was pretty good. There was just one thing I wanted to mention.
22:08<Julian>Please do!
22:08<grumpy>Julian: Yes, all DNS servers *should* allow binary data in domain names (but not host names), but I'm just not sure what most resolvers will do with bravo.\[b10].foo.example
22:08<grumpy>Julian: no, I have not read it yet..... :-<
22:09<Julian>grumpy: Read it, it's not that long. 5min should suffice.
22:09<grumpy>Uh, where is it?
22:10<Julian>grumpy: I posted it to spf-private.
22:10*grumpy goes searching.
22:10<MarkK>In a way you already have, but I was thinking that perpaps you could stress a bit clearer how SPF will, when enough domain owers publish SPF records, allow the re-introduction of domain based blocklists; that, in the long run, will really help to reduce spam. I thought a person like Yakov might like to hear about those things.
22:10<Julian>grumpy: 2005-03-01, subject "Draft Response to Yakov's Inquiry (was: PR Inquiry)"
22:11<MarkK>Other than that, I was quite content with it
22:11<Julian>MarkK: Note that my response is not supposed to be an article in itself, but a response to Yakov's questions.
22:11<Julian>I guess Yakov knows about the background already, I think he just wanted to know our position on certain issues.
22:11<MarkK>Julian; I realize that, of course; but it seems to me Yakov might be looking for a response from us in which we spell it out.
22:12<Julian>Hmm.
22:12<MarkK>otoh, as you say, Yakov is well aware and familiar with these issues
22:13<grumpy>I'm pretty sure Yakov also understands that those are some of the reasons why people like SPF and are involved with it.
22:13<Julian>The most important issue with my (our) response is that it should not misrepresent any(thing|one).
22:13<MarkK>I think you did a good job of that
22:13<Julian>csm-laptop: Welcome back!
22:13<csm-laptop>hello
22:13<csm-laptop>sorry...
22:13<csm-laptop>had to walk down the hill back to the hotel
22:14<csm-laptop>I am on site at HP this week
22:14*Julian passes the imaginary conch to csm-laptop.
22:14<csm-laptop>so where are we?
22:14<csm-laptop>we start anything yet?
22:14<grumpy>no, not yet...
22:14<MarkK>you were about to start the meeting :)
22:14<Julian>csm-laptop: We have not yet started.
22:14<csm-laptop>okay
22:14<Julian>freeside: ping
22:14<csm-laptop>well the meeting will come to order
22:15<csm-laptop>first item on the agenda is approval of the minutes from the previous meeting
22:15<grumpy>I have read the minutes and approve of them.
22:15<grumpy>motion: approve the minutes
22:15<csm-laptop>second?
22:15<Julian>For the record, the minutes are here: http://spf.mehnle.net/Council_Meeting/2005-02-09
22:15<grumpy>(do others need more time to read them?)
22:16<csm-laptop>second the motion? anyone?
22:16*csm-laptop presumed a motion on grumpy's first comment
22:16<Julian>I'd like not having to second the motion, even though I will vote "yes".
22:16*grumpy points @ MarkK
22:16<MarkK>seconded
22:17<csm-laptop>votes?
22:17<Julian>2215u: yes
22:17<grumpy>22:15 yes
22:17<MarkK>2215u: yes
22:17*csm-laptop pokes freeside
22:17<grumpy>someone said he was on #spf an hour ago...
22:17<Julian>Correct.
22:18<csm-laptop>I know... I at least talked in his general direction
22:18<csm-laptop>anyway
22:18<csm-laptop>so ordered...
22:18<csm-laptop>next item is the Chairman's report
22:18<Julian>Thank you.
22:18<csm-laptop>I have delivered my PR to Julian for editing... he tells me it should be ready tomorrow or friday...
22:19<Julian>True.
22:19<csm-laptop>then we will pass it in front of the council...
22:19<MarkK>Also, a nitpick perhaps, but I thought somewhere along the line we agreed on having eat least a 24 hour notice prior to a meeting. I mean, I do not mind now, since I was here anyway. But I might have missed it.
22:19<csm-laptop>having what?
22:19<Julian>MarkK: We also were supposed to have _regular_ bi-weekly meetings. ;-)
22:19<csm-laptop>a
22:19<csm-laptop>I see
22:19<csm-laptop>MarkK: blame me... it's my fault
22:20<Julian>Well, I hope freeside has no problem with today's short notice.
22:20<MarkK>no blame going around, really :) just that I might have easily missed it
22:20*csm-laptop is just a mess... :-)
22:20<Julian>csm-laptop: You also wanted to report on AMSG?
22:20<csm-laptop>so anyway... that's the chairman's report
22:20<grumpy>divorces will do that...
22:20<csm-laptop>ah...
22:21<Julian>At least that's what the agenda says.
22:21<csm-laptop>amsg has added a new member and I swear to god I will be moving it ahead...
22:21<Julian>(which was written by you.)
22:21*csm-laptop winces
22:21<Julian>Ok. I think we all have a life beyond SPF. :)
22:21*Julian certainly does.
22:22*csm-laptop has a bit too much life right now!
22:22<csm-laptop>but in many ways it's a good thing
22:22<Julian>Better too much than too little. ;-)
22:22<csm-laptop>anyway that's actually the totality of what I have to say
22:22<csm-laptop>so Meng?
22:22*Julian pokes freeside, too.
22:23<Julian>Alright, let's defer the ED's report until later, ok?
22:23<csm-laptop>next item
22:24<csm-laptop>Yakov Response
22:24<Julian>One moment, please!
22:24<Julian>I request that we either speak mysteriously, or not include this item in the minutes.
22:25<grumpy>what about the IRC logs?
22:25<Julian>Well, I'm against censoring those.
22:25<csm-laptop>I read through Julian's work... and it was good...well hang on a sec
22:25<Julian>But including the item in the minutes is going to give the item more prominence than necessary.
22:26<grumpy>I have'nt read all of the response yet, but one comment I have is that there are probably closer to 1million SPF records.
22:26<csm-laptop>I think we can maybe handle this without "opening up" on the content
22:26<Julian>Motion: The IRC discussion on item #4 shall not be included in the meeting minutes.
22:26*grumpy has completed another survey of all .com/.net/.org domains, but hasn't analized them yet.
22:27<csm-laptop>I read the thing and liked it
22:27<MarkK>Julian: but this forum is public anyway
22:27<Julian>grumpy: Well, I haven't had access to any other numbers besides the infinitepenguins ones.
22:28<grumpy>I've mentioned my previous surveys before...
22:28<grumpy>I'll try to do some calculations soon after the meeting
22:28<Julian>I know, but they haven't really solidified yet, have they?
22:28<grumpy>"they"?
22:28<grumpy>my previous surveys?
22:28<Julian>Your surveys.
22:29<grumpy>what do you mean by "solidified"?
22:29<Julian>I mean, is there a conclusive web page I can refer to?
22:29<grumpy>I ran the surveys and posted numbers to spf-dicuss and/or marid
22:29<grumpy>oh, no, no web page, other than links to posts
22:29<Julian>Well, I could link to the mailing list posting, but that's not really _that_ convincing. :-]
22:30<grumpy>If someone wants to put the numbers on a webpage, that would be great
22:30<grumpy>infinitepenguins doesn't look very good right now either...
22:30<Julian>It should either be on spf-help.com or on spf.pobox.com in order to look authoritative.
22:30<Julian>(Or was it spf-help.net? Whatever.)
22:31<Julian>I agree, but it's the best we have at the moment.
22:31<Julian>s/the best/the best numbers/
22:31<grumpy>anyway, this is OT... what were we supposed to be discussing?
22:31<Julian>4. Yakov Response.
22:31<grumpy>Ah
22:31<Julian>Any suggestions for changes to the response draft?
22:32<Julian>..._concrete_ suggestions...
22:32*MarkK brings a motion to accept julian's response, and sanction sending it out as 'official'.
22:32<grumpy>not for the purposes of this meeting... I need to read it carefully..
22:33<csm-laptop>okay...
22:33<Julian>grumpy: Ok, I'd like to send it off before I go to bed this night (i.e. before ~01:00 UTC).
22:33<csm-laptop>based on grumpy's request I have a suggestion...
22:33<Julian>grumpy: Send me your suggestions before that.
22:33<grumpy>Ok, let's finish this meeting quickly then. ;-)
22:34<Julian>csm-laptop: What suggestion?
22:34<MarkK>Ok, if we need more time, then I withdraw the motion; but lets be fast about it regardless. :)
22:34<csm-laptop>grumpy... read it while we discuss the web site
22:34<Julian>csm-laptop: Good idea.
22:34<csm-laptop>the next item is the web site
22:34<grumpy>I think we should have a website
22:34<Julian>LOL
22:34<csm-laptop>and let me just point out that where the web site is concerned...
22:35<csm-laptop>the natives are growing quite restless... ;-)
22:35*csm-laptop smiles
22:35<Julian>csm-laptop: Well, I'm sorry it took me so long to present my plan.
22:35<Julian>There was this "life" thing that just didn't want to go away. ;-)
22:35<MarkK>all: reading the feedback from discuss, this websites really becomes an urgent issue; we can no longer ignore it
22:35<Julian>MarkK: I don't think we are ignoring it.
22:36<csm-laptop>MarkK: and thus we find it on today's meeting agenda!
22:36<MarkK>:)
22:36*csm-laptop grinz again
22:36<csm-laptop>so...
22:37<MarkK>I have the server to run it on, of course; but I do not have unlimited bandwidth
22:37<csm-laptop>I had and have noooooooooo objection to Julian's plan
22:37<csm-laptop>and freeside has already said that pobox is more than willing to continue hosting
22:37<Julian>It might be possible to return to my originally planned discussion deadline of 2005-03-09, but we _need_ some hosting offers (e.g. from Meng), and some software suggestions.
22:37<csm-laptop>on the software front...
22:37<MarkK>a new server will have to be able to accept quite a few 'why.html' requests
22:37<csm-laptop>who ever is gonna maintain it needs to be familiar with the software
22:38<Julian>It would have been really good to have Meng present this evening.
22:38<MarkK>julian: yes
22:38<Julian>Also, the software and hosting should fulfill most of my requirements.
22:38<Julian>(E.g. multiple editors and stuff.)
22:38<MarkK>I think most of us know how to run a website; I think bandwidth will be the real issue
22:39<Julian>MarkK: I agree.
22:39<csm-laptop>pobox says they will handle it
22:39<Julian>spf.pobox.com handled the bandwidth pretty well so far.
22:39<MarkK>like I said, a new server will have to be able to accept quite a few 'why.html' requests. those could be millions per day
22:40<csm-laptop>perhaps a cached response for that?
22:40<Julian>Alright, I don't think we can (nor should) make a final decision today.
22:40<MarkK>also, he who runs that website, would also have a pretty good overview on fails, etc.
22:40<Julian>MarkK: Interesting aspect.
22:40<csm-laptop>well did anybody have any objection to Julian's plan?
22:41*MarkK expressed his disappointment on meng not being here; we *really* need him present for this
22:41<MarkK>plan?
22:41<Julian>csm-laptop: You mean my meta-plan?
22:41<csm-laptop>yes
22:41<csm-laptop>I thought it was good
22:41<Julian>"[spf-discuss] Official website: Requirements, Contents, Solutions"
22:41<MarkK>Ok, that plan
22:41<csm-laptop>>freeside< ping! <----------- I have been sending out aq bunch of those
22:42<Julian>Well, Meng can still comment on the website issue by mail.
22:42<csm-laptop>so I think Julian should keep pushing his plan on behalf of the council
22:42<MarkK>agreed
22:42<csm-laptop>and get Meng to pony up some web site access
22:43<MarkK>and do some redirect
22:43<Julian>Perhaps we don't need any redirections if the site ends up being hosted on spf.pobox.com again.
22:44<Julian>Some people in the community won't like this because they don't trust Meng.
22:45<MarkK>Could be. I think the critique voiced on discuss, re the relationship with Microsft, needs resolving too; I would really like for Meng to either remove certain sender-id related texts, or seriously reword them.
22:45<csm-laptop>Meng needs to pony up some web access
22:45<csm-laptop>and then we get a new web site
22:45<Julian>Well, that's why I said the new website needs edit access for all the council members.
22:45<Julian>csm-laptop: Right.
22:46<MarkK>csm: right
22:46<csm-laptop>and I am hoping my new PR will clarify our position with respect to SID
22:46<Julian>Shall I ask Meng to either change the current site or give someone of us edit access?
22:46<csm-laptop>ask Meng for whatever you think you need to move us forward...
22:46<csm-laptop>nobody can tell any of us how to run a web site
22:47<Julian>I, personally, wouldn't want to invest much time in fixing the current site.
22:47<csm-laptop>we all know how already
22:47<MarkK>csm: as a sidenote, I am beginning to agree more and more with you on the issue of a clearer statement regarding sender-id being required. lso, if we look on spf-discuss, ppl are really getting ticked off the way the website is now
22:47<csm-laptop>MarkK: I know...
22:47<csm-laptop>I have known this was coming for a while
22:48<csm-laptop>okay so Julian... hound Meng like there is no tomorrow!
22:48<csm-laptop>:-)
22:48<Julian>I'm going to introduce the CIVS test vote real soon now, so the community can perhaps do one or two real at-large votes on this stuff.
22:48<csm-laptop>grumpy: done reading yet?
22:49<MarkK>csm: yes, I see little value in 'fixing' the current site; a clear, new one would be better (and probably faster roo)
22:49<MarkK>too, even
22:49<Julian>Ranked voting would do wonders for voting on several differing Sender-ID position statements (probably even including the existing position statement).
22:51<csm-laptop>MarkK: I want a new site.... but I'm not the one that's going to do it
22:51<csm-laptop>which is good...
22:51<grumpy>csm-laptop: I'm making a reply to spf-private
22:51<csm-laptop>if I was it might not get done soon
22:51<Julian>grumpy: Ok.
22:51<grumpy>Julian: I agree about voting
22:52<Julian>I need to coordinate with John Pinkerton for the test vote, though. He's the closest thing to an election officer we have.
22:53<Julian>Also, he wrote the old election software.
22:53<MarkK>csm: we have quite a few ppl willing and able (think: jpink, for instance) to help out on the new website; but redunantly so, really nothing goes without meng's help
22:53<Julian>MarkK: Is that so??
22:54<MarkK>julian, what part?
22:54<Julian>I mean, I don't want to pass over Meng, but technically, we could.
22:55<MarkK>then how are we going to deal with all those URLs to why.html on the pobox website?
22:55<MarkK>for that, we do need meng's help
22:56<Julian>MarkK: Well, the http://spf.pobox.com/why.html URL isn't defined in the spec, it's just in the reference implementation (and perhaps in some other implementations).
22:56<Julian>But this is all hypothetical.
22:56<MarkK>(on my own server, I can easily 's/ / /' that URL, of course), but that only applies to my server
22:56<csm-laptop>a redirect form there to somewhere else would be easy if that's what we want to do
22:57<MarkK>csm: not without meng actually doing the redirect, is my point
22:57<csm-laptop>MarkK: I know
22:57<grumpy>Julian: it is in most other implementations that I know of..
22:57<MarkK>so, we need to bug the hell out of him. :)
22:58<grumpy>("it" == "hardcode URL to pobox")
22:58<MarkK>julian: yes, and like I said, locally that URL is easily substituted; I'd rather see it done at the source, though
22:59<csm-laptop>grumpy: if those are all your comments on the Yakov doc then we can go with it?
23:00<grumpy>those are my only comments... the "reactionary" part is the thing I feel most strongly about.
23:00<Julian>Agreed. But this is all really hypothetical at the moment. I'd really like to hear Meng's opinion on where the site should be hosted.
23:00<grumpy>I could certainly live with it being sent as-is.
23:01<csm-laptop>Julian: Meng thinks it should be hosted at pobox
23:01<csm-laptop>he said that earlier today
23:01<grumpy>I thought Meng has pretty much opened up to the idea of a new site being run off of pobox...
23:01<Julian>csm-laptop: What were his reasons?
23:01<csm-laptop>well I didn't ask him...
23:01<grumpy>didn't he say something about getting mason running somewhere and start hacking?
23:01*Julian reads grumpy's comments.
23:01<csm-laptop>but given that he's volunteering to host it ... I mean what's the problem as long as we have editorial access?
23:02<Julian>grumpy: Yes, Meng said such a thing.
23:02<MarkK>I am not opposed to that, per se, but that new website would have to be under control of ppl we selected (without an overriding voice of meng, sorry)
23:02<Julian>I'm not sure I like the Mason thing. I doubt it's _easy_ to edit.
23:03<grumpy>For what it is worth, I could make good use of the why.html data for help with the trusted-fowarder DNSWL.
23:03<Julian>Has anyone of you ever tried to edit http://spf.mehnle.net?
23:03<grumpy>that's the council thingy?
23:03<Julian>Yep.
23:03<grumpy>yeah, I've made changes to it.
23:03<grumpy>been a while.
23:03<grumpy>worked fine though.
23:03<Julian>Editing Mason pages with `vi` or uploading stuff via SFTP isn't what I'd call easy.
23:03<MarkK>we could go with something like that, julian
23:04<Julian>It depends on what Meng thinks.
23:04<MarkK>julian: agreed
23:04<Julian>grumpy: Alright, I sort of agree with you not liking the "reactionaries" wording.
23:04<csm-laptop>okay... we have passed the 1 hour mark...
23:04<grumpy>I think Meng's point was not that mason is the only way to go, but that it would be easy to start fixing up the current site if you had it.
23:04<csm-laptop>we are not going to solve the web site without meng
23:04<grumpy>agreed.
23:05<csm-laptop>Julian: keep pushing Meng!
23:05<Julian>csm-laptop: Will do.
23:05<csm-laptop>any other business?
23:05<Julian>grumpy: So, what wording would you suggest?
23:05<Julian>csm-laptop: Just a few more minutes, please.
23:05<csm-laptop>okay
23:05*grumpy notices Julian's earlier question
23:05<MarkK>to bring this up again, I really think a website hosted on pobox.com would have to be under control of ppl we selected (without an overriding voice of meng); otherwise we are equally 'worse' off. Agreed?
23:05<grumpy>Julian: Uh, I dunno.
23:05<Julian>MarkK: Agreed.
23:06<Julian>Let me think about it for 90s.
23:06<Julian>grumpy: Let me think about it for 90s.
23:06<Julian>s/reactionaries/conservatives/? But that would kinda be redundant, then...
23:06<grumpy>web hosting sites are pretty cheap. I also think that Shevek may be able to provide one
23:06<csm-laptop>MarkK: I said this a little bit ago:
23:06<csm-laptop><csm-laptop> but given that he's volunteering to host it ... I mean what's the problem as long as we have editorial access?
23:07<Julian>s/reactionaries/conservatives/? But that would kinda be redundant, then...
23:07<grumpy>I don't have a problem with it being hosted with Meng...
23:07<MarkK>csm: it is a matter of trust, really; we will need his word, so to speak, he will not put, say, unwanted sender-id statements on it. :)
23:07<grumpy>Julian: maybe take the whole phrase out? Yakov wrote a really good, long article about the problems with MARID, he knows as well as anyone...
23:07<Julian>"ultra conservatives", perhaps.
23:08<MarkK>grumpy: me neither
23:08<Julian>MarkK: Well, substantial edits to the website would have to be approved by a majority of the council anyway.
23:09*grumpy will vote against flash....
23:09<grumpy>(and MIDI)
23:10<csm-laptop>okay so what else do we have for today's meeting?
23:10<MarkK>flash way cool; it also means certain ppl will not be able to load it; we need a site accessible by pretty much everyone
23:10<Julian>Well, I'd like to point to the text of Yakov's question #4.
23:11<Julian>"[...] Is there anything you can share with us about that?"
23:11<grumpy>I have not heard boo from the IETF
23:11<Julian>I think he likes us to give a statement on MARID from _our_ perspective.
23:11<grumpy>I have no idea if the directorate has been set up yet.
23:11<Julian>I think it has. https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=12662&rfc_flag=0
23:12<grumpy>Ok, I'll take that back. I've had *one* comment from the IETF...
23:12<MarkK>julian: is there any way you can include those URLs wayne gave about the IETF status in your reply to Yakov?
23:12<Julian>Would you all agree with s/reactionaries/conservatives/? Or do you want a more substantial edit?
23:13<grumpy>Julian: I would recommend just deleting the phrase...
23:13<Julian>MarkK: What URLs that Wayne gave?
23:13<MarkK>julian: about the current state of the IETF progress
23:13<Julian>MarkK: You mean https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=12662&rfc_flag=0 and https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=1599&filename=draft-schlitt-spf-classic ?
23:14<MarkK>yes :)
23:14<Julian>Did Wayne also post these URLs? I guess I must have missed that.
23:14<MarkK>he posted them on the private list, I think
23:14<Julian>Oh, that reminds me of one more thing. grumpy, what's the status of the -01 draft?
23:15<Julian>MarkK: I think that was me, wasn't it?
23:15<grumpy>Uh, I'm kind of hoping to get a new rev out tonight (my time)
23:15<MarkK>LOL; ok, sorry, yeah, I think it was, actually. :)
23:15<Julian>grumpy: Any more details?
23:16<Julian>grumpy: I think we should review -01 before you submit it to the IETF.
23:16<grumpy>well, not really. It will have zone cuts removed and many of the suggestions I saw, up to about 2wks ago...
23:16<grumpy>yes, definately...
23:16<grumpy>it is "01pre1"
23:16<Julian>grumpy: Call it -01.n (-01.0, -01.1, etc.).
23:17<Julian>Or 01pre1, ok.
23:17<Julian>"pre" is better, actually.
23:17<csm-laptop>guys... are we done?
23:17<csm-laptop>can we close the official meeting now?
23:17<grumpy>fine with me
23:17<MarkK>ok
23:17<Julian>Alright, I will defuse my response to Yakov a bit and then send it off.
23:17<grumpy>Julian: were you looking for something more specific?
23:17<Julian>csm-laptop: Wait.
23:18<csm-laptop>augh
23:18<Julian>Can I have an formal affirmation from you for the Yakov response?
23:18<grumpy>sure
23:18<grumpy>motion: approve Julians response to Yakov
23:19<csm-laptop>second?
23:19<MarkK>seconded
23:19<csm-laptop>votes?
23:19<Julian>2318u: yes
23:19<grumpy>2318u: yes
23:19<MarkK>2318u: yes
23:19<csm-laptop>so ordered
23:19<Julian>Thank you.
23:19<Julian>That should be it.
23:19<MarkK>no, thank you! :)
23:19<grumpy>ok, anything else?
23:20<csm-laptop>do I hear a motion to adjourn?
23:20<Julian>I can't think of a thing.
23:20<grumpy>ok, then motion: adjourn
23:20<csm-laptop>opposition?
23:20<csm-laptop>hearing none... we are adjourned
23:20<Julian>Adjourn until 2005-03-16?
23:20<Julian>Or next week?
23:20<csm-laptop>16
23:20<grumpy>IRC logs will be published at 00:00 UTC, as per normal...
23:21<Julian>I think next Wed would be good. Think website (Meng), more press (will post to spf-private in a minute), and the -01 draft.
23:21<MarkK>I want to re-iterate julian's earlier point, that if we have biweekly meetings, we *really* need to be here.
23:21<grumpy>yeah, sorry about last week.
23:21<MarkK>meng included :)
23:22<MarkK>then the 16th is okay with me
23:22<Julian>Hmm, look, wait for a few days, then maybe you'll agree with me that having a meeting next week would be good.
23:23<MarkK>ok :)
23:23<Julian>We haven't had one for how long? 3 weeks?
23:23<MarkK>2.5 or so, yes
23:24<MarkK>or maybe even 3
23:24*Julian prepares the Yakov response.
23:25*csm-laptop wanders away
23:25<Julian>grumpy: I seriously hope you can back up the "more than a million SPF records" claim. ;-)
23:26<MarkK>also, informally, can we all think a but on the new website name?
23:26<Julian>MarkK: You mean here, now?
23:26<MarkK>the domain name, I mean
23:27<MarkK>julian: no, I mean in the course of next week, until the next meeting
23:27<Julian>MarkK: Sure.
23:27<Julian>I think we should try keeping spf.pobox.com as _one_ of the domains.
23:34<Julian>w00t! I've got a good idea for a domain name, gonna register it tomorrow!
23:34<MarkK>ok :)
23:34<Julian>Just to be safe. :)
23:34<MarkK>Julian, I really appreciate you writing that answer to Yakov, btw; I was really getting to feel that we were way overdue on the matter
23:36<MarkK>I'm sure Meng does too
23:36<Julian>MarkK: Let's move this discussion to #spf.
23:36<MarkK>ok

This report was generated at Wed Mar 2 23:59:59 UTC 2005.