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.
| --- Wed Sep 7 00:00:20 UTC 2005 --- |
| 00:00 | <Julian> | No authentication. Perhaps we'll have to set up some anti-spam protection. |
| 00:00 | <grumpy> | I think it might be best to limit it to only people who have a log in. |
| 00:01 | <Julian> | We'll see if this section is going to be a major spam problem, which I doubt somehow. |
| 00:01 | <grumpy> | I also have some concerns about malicious content from people who don't particularly like SPF. |
| 00:02 | <grumpy> | There are lots of webpages that bash SPF. I don't have a problem with that. I'm not so sure about bashing SPF on the SPF website though. |
| 00:02 | <Julian> | Well, you must set a username in the user preferences to edit pages. This is not really a security measure, just so we see who edits what. |
| 00:03 | <grumpy> | Well, we can see what happens |
| 00:03 | <Julian> | Wikis are usually quite resistent against vandals. Abuse can be undone very quickly. |
| 00:04 | <Julian> | ... |
| 00:04 | <grumpy> | only if there is enough active people to correct things. |
| 00:04 | <Julian> | True. |
| 00:05 | <Julian> | Now for spf-webmasters and our volunteer webmaster. Meng has set up a new spf-webmasters list, which I have then configured and announced to the other lists. |
| 00:06 | <Julian> | I have also invited Michael Weiner to join spf-webmasters, who has volunteered over a month ago to act as a webmaster for the project. |
| 00:06 | <freeside> | somebody wanted to join the -project list, did you guys see the approval request from listbox? |
| 00:06 | <MarkK> | yes, I saw you extended the invitation |
| 00:06 | <Julian> | Unfortunately, I have not received a response yet. |
| 00:06 | <grumpy> | has he responded? |
| 00:06 | <MarkK> | jglube? |
| 00:08 | <grumpy> | freeside: can we purge the archives for spf-project? |
| 00:08 | <grumpy> | I couldn't find a way to do that. |
| 00:08 | <grumpy> | Also, is there any way to transfer the spf-council archives? |
| 00:08 | <grumpy> | if so, what format do you need them in? |
| 00:08 | <grumpy> | (and spf-private also.) |
| 00:09 | <Julian> | This may be due to me having waited so long before contacting him (reasons: I was busy and I was waiting for spf-webmasters) or perhaps due to his relationship with Chuck. I cannot assess the latter, though, and I wouldn't want to believe that before any indications to that end become apparent. |
| 00:09 | <Julian> | (this = Michael Weiner not having responded yet) |
| 00:09 | <Julian> | It may also be due to him being on vacation. |
| 00:09 | <grumpy> | yeah |
| 00:10 | <grumpy> | considering how slow we have been, I can't see requiring Michael to respond instantly. |
| 00:10 | <Julian> | True. |
| 00:10 | <grumpy> | I don't think we can/should wait forever either. |
| 00:10 | <grumpy> | I'm not sure where to draw the line |
| 00:10 | <Julian> | In any case, I have promised to act as the second webmaster for now. |
| 00:10 | <grumpy> | ok |
| 00:10 | <Julian> | So we can start creating content for the new site immediately. |
| 00:11 | <Julian> | ... |
| 00:12 | <Julian> | (Explaining me waiting for spf-webmasters before contacting Michael: I wanted to contact him _first_ as a courtesy, before announcing the website and spf-webmasters to the general public.) |
| 00:12 | <grumpy> | very reasonable |
| 00:13 | <Julian> | Ok, anyways. Now that we have an official domain and the new site, we can move on. |
| 00:13 | <Julian> | On with my report... |
| 00:13 | <MarkK> | there is more? :) |
| 00:14 | <Julian> | 2. I have filed the appeal regarding the re-use of "v=spf1" records by Sender ID under PRA semantics. You all know that, so I'm not going to expand on that. |
| 00:14 | <Julian> | ... |
| 00:16 | <Julian> | As of a few hours ago, I have not yet received an answer by the IESG. IESG chair Brian Carpenter promised that they would "consider it as soon as reasonably possible". |
| 00:18 | <Julian> | Also, there has been a private discussion on spf-private between Wayne and Harry Katz from Microsoft, which (the discussion, not MS) I joined. |
| 00:18 | <Julian> | For obvious reasons I cannot go into great detail, but a few things can be said in public. |
| 00:21 | <Julian> | For me, it was the first direct correspondence with someone from Microsoft about the "v=spf1" re-use issue. The bottom line is that MS as a whole isn't going to back down from the re-use. |
| 00:21 | <MarkK> | julian: for me, too |
| 00:23 | <Julian> | I very explicitly repeated what I had already proposed at the MAAWG SPF/S-ID interoperability BoF in June, i.e. to resolve the conflict by both MS and the SPF project moving on to and commonly promoting a post-"v=spf1" record format, and leaving the "v=spf1" semantics undisputed and in the hands of the SPF project. |
| 00:24 | <Julian> | Harry didn't exhibit any serious interest in that solution, however. |
| 00:25 | <Julian> | grumpy: Do you want to add any non-confidential things? |
| 00:26 | <grumpy> | I guess my only comment was that Harry doesn't speak for MS and that Harry express reluctance to participating in spf-discuss due to the high likelihood that many people will attack him for all of MS's sins. |
| 00:26 | <grumpy> | (real or imagined.) |
| 00:27 | <grumpy> | (that's all I have to say on the subject...) |
| 00:27 | <Julian> | Ok, so that should clear up any wonderments about that has recently happened on spf-private. |
| 00:27 | <Julian> | s/that/what/ |
| 00:28 | <Julian> | ...about what has... |
| 00:28 | <Julian> | Have I missed anything in my report? |
| 00:28 | <Julian> | Can't think of a thing. |
| 00:29 | <grumpy> | ok |
| 00:29 | <Julian> | Did any of you have any press contacts? |
| 00:29 | <grumpy> | MarkK? freeside? do you have reports? |
| 00:30 | <grumpy> | Uh, I guess that is likely a "no".... |
| 00:30 | <freeside> | negative |
| 00:30 | <freeside> | in a meeting. |
| 00:30 | <grumpy> | ok |
| 00:30 | <MarkK> | I have no report at this time |
| 00:30 | <grumpy> | Well, is there anything else we should discuss? |
| 00:30 | <Julian> | I had been contacted by Kevin Murphy from ComputerWire. He wanted to do an interview with me about the appeal. |
| 00:32 | <Julian> | I think we could discuss one more thing, although it isn't exactly urgent. |
| 00:32 | <grumpy> | go ahead |
| 00:32 | <Julian> | Establishing election procedures and appointing and election officer. |
| 00:32 | <MarkK> | yes |
| 00:32 | <grumpy> | Hmmm.... I was pondering that also |
| 00:32 | <Julian> | The next council election is due in November. |
| 00:33 | <grumpy> | but we do have some time and I think we should bounce that to spf-discuss |
| 00:33 | <Julian> | Ok. |
| 00:33 | <Julian> | I would like to resolve this issue _in_time_ before the next election. |
| 00:33 | <grumpy> | yes |
| 00:34 | <Julian> | I.e. at least before the end of October. |
| 00:34 | <Julian> | Ok. I can't think of anything else. |
| 00:34 | <grumpy> | ok |
| 00:35 | <grumpy> | Uh, does anyone else have anything? |
| 00:35 | <grumpy> | I suspect freeside doesn't 'cause he is in a meeting |
| 00:35 | <grumpy> | MarkK? |
| 00:35 | <Julian> | Nothing official. |
| 00:35 | <MarkK> | nothing official, either |
| 00:36 | <grumpy> | ok, shall we officiall adjourn and then do the unofficial stuff? |
| 00:36 | <Julian> | k |
| 00:36 | <grumpy> | motion: adjourn |
| 00:36 | <Julian> | 0036u: seconded |
| 00:36 | <grumpy> | votes |
| 00:36 | <Julian> | 0036u: yes |
| 00:36 | <grumpy> | 0036u: yes |
| 00:36 | <MarkK> | I would, at some point, like to discuss, when everyone is present, how to proceed with the resuse of the v=-spf1 records; but, apart from that, nothing official for now |
| 00:36 | <MarkK> | 0036u: yes |
| 00:37 | <grumpy> | ok, the meeting is officially adjourned |
| 00:37 | <Julian> | MarkK: Yeah, good point. We aren't going to persuade MS, but we still could use a strategy. |
| 00:37 | <Julian> | --> #spf |
| 00:37 | <grumpy> | Well, i'm interested in ideas |
| 00:38 | <MarkK> | are we going to #spf? |
| 00:38 | <Julian> | grumpy: Ideas on a strategy? |
| 00:38 | <grumpy> | but I predict that the IESG will say there isn't a problem, and that MS will ignore us. |
| 00:38 | <grumpy> | yeah |
| 00:38 | <Julian> | Let's discuss the ideas here. |
| 00:38 | <grumpy> | any reason to go to #spf instead of spf-discuss? |
| 00:38 | <Julian> | Not for council discussions. |
| 00:38 | <Julian> | (I wanted to talk to you, grumpy, about something else, though, which would be off-topic here.) |
| 00:39 | <grumpy> | oh |
| 00:39 | <grumpy> | ok |
| 00:39 | <Julian> | Let's discuss the ideas here. |
| 00:39 | <grumpy> | So, do either of you have ideas about the re-use of SPFv1 records? |
| 00:40 | <Julian> | Well, I'm not going make any predictions on the IESG's response. Also, there's still the IAB. |
| 00:40 | <MarkK> | I wonder if we could get MS to only use the v=spf1 records when there'a an extra scope in the string. It has been suggested before. |
| 00:40 | <grumpy> | MarkK: I *really* doubt it. |
| 00:40 | <Julian> | I doubt however that it would be appropriate to bother the IAB with issues of an "Experimental" RFC. |
| 00:41 | <Julian> | I also doubt it. |
| 00:41 | <MarkK> | Harry did seem to say that we should not expect too much cooperation, though |
| 00:41 | <grumpy> | Uh, I thought the appeal *was* to the IAB. |
| 00:41 | <Julian> | grumpy: No, it was to the IESG chair. |
| 00:41 | <grumpy> | Uh, Hmmmm... |
| 00:41 | <Julian> | Only if the IESG ignores the appeal can it be escalated to the IAB. |
| 00:42 | <grumpy> | I thought the appeals were listed on the IAB website. |
| 00:42 | <Julian> | s/ignores/turns down/ |
| 00:42 | <MarkK> | I just think it really frustrating that we cannot come to some sort of resolution with them |
| 00:42 | <Julian> | grumpy: Nope. |
| 00:42 | <Julian> | http://www.iab.org/appeals/index.html |
| 00:43 | <Julian> | http://www.ietf.org/IESG/Appeals.html |
| 00:43 | <Julian> | MS just has no interest in contacting the hundreds of thousands of "v=spf1" record owners and tell them to add "op=pra" to their records. |
| 00:44 | <Julian> | They want to use the "v=spf1" records as-is. |
| 00:44 | <MarkK> | julian: yes, that is likely |
| 00:44 | <MarkK> | I wish they would, though |
| 00:44 | <Julian> | I can see where they come from, although I think they are very, very wrong. |
| 00:44 | <grumpy> | well, I think I would probably vote "no" for an IAB appeal. |
| 00:44 | <MarkK> | I just do not share Harry's optimism about false positives |
| 00:45 | <grumpy> | unless there is some signs that it might actually succeed |
| 00:45 | <Julian> | grumpy: I don't share that kind of opportunism. |
| 00:45 | <grumpy> | MarkK: I agree, but I don't see that we can do anything about it. |
| 00:46 | <grumpy> | Julian: I think there is little point in wasting other people's time. |
| 00:46 | <MarkK> | essentially MS just ignores the issue; which to me, and any administrator anywhere around the globe, is just abhorrent; "yeah, lets just ignore false positives; we're playing the numbers here." |
| 00:46 | <Julian> | My willingness to escalate the appeal to the IAB has nothing to do with its chances of succeeding, only with whether this appeal is appropriate matter for the IAB to decide on. |
| 00:47 | <grumpy> | Well, I can't stop you from appealing to the IAB |
| 00:47 | <MarkK> | I think we shpuld probably wait out the result of the current appeal first |
| 00:48 | <Julian> | I think we're on the "morally right" side of the conflict, until we're proven wrong by experience (false positives etc.). |
| 00:48 | <grumpy> | so who are you going to appeal to when the IAB turns us down? |
| 00:48 | <Julian> | The IAB?? When the IAB turns us down, there's nobody left to appeal to. |
| 00:49 | <grumpy> | sure there is. |
| 00:49 | <grumpy> | you can sue the in court. |
| 00:49 | <Julian> | However, I'm unsure whether it is appropriate to escalate the appeal to the IAB. |
| 00:49 | <MarkK> | morally right, yes; but technically right is more important. I cannot understand why technical merit is not paramount in all of this. |
| 00:49 | <Julian> | grumpy: Huh? |
| 00:50 | <MarkK> | the IAB may not hear your appeal until this one has been ruled on |
| 00:51 | <Julian> | Anyway. Many ignorants aren't going to care about us being on the (morally or technically) "right" side. |
| 00:52 | <Julian> | grumpy: I don't think anybody can sue the IETF in court over _such_ matters. Or, perhaps I'm just too ignorant on the level of brokenness of the US legal system. |
| 00:52 | <MarkK> | no, they will not; but they *will* blame SPF when things go wrong, I can pretty much guarantee that |
| 00:53 | <Julian> | Yes, not unlikely. We won't be able to prevent that, however. All we can do is to educate those people. |
| 00:53 | <MarkK> | well, since we have no assets, we cannot sue either (nor should we even, I think) |
| 00:54 | <Julian> | (Re morally right vs. technically right -- I think we're morally right _because_ we're technically right, and because the IETF claims to be a _technical_ forum.) |
| 00:55 | <Julian> | I cannot see in the slightest, either, why we would want to go to court over this issue. |
| 00:57 | <Julian> | In any case, I think we should be prepared to confront Microsoft, PR-wise, on the issue. They have the big professional PR machinery, but we have grassroots PR. |
| 00:58 | <MarkK> | yes |
| 00:59 | <Julian> | We shouldn't directly make a campaign out of this specific issue, but perhaps a grassroots campaign on the brand of "v=spf1" / "SPF Classic" could be worthwhile. |