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/2006/09/16_irc_log.html.

IRC nicknames:
JulianJulian Mehnle
MarkKMark Kramer (asarian-host.net)
SDGathmanStuart Gathman
shewMark Shewmaker
willixWilliam Leibzon
 
freesideMeng Weng Wong
gconnorGreg Connor
grumpyWayne Schlitt

--- Sat Aug 19 17:01:07 UTC 2006 ---
17:01<Julian>3 of 5
17:39<Julian>I think we need glue code for forwarder white-listing.
17:40<Julian>It would fall in the same category as LAMP, XAMMP, and AJAX.
17:40<Julian>Actually, I think I should post that to spf-discuss.
--- Sat Sep 2 16:56:14 UTC 2006 ---
16:56<SDGathman>Anyone here?
--- Wed Sep 6 22:37:02 UTC 2006 ---
22:37<grumpy>can everyone please try leaving this channel so that we can regain ops?
--- Sat Sep 9 17:16:35 UTC 2006 ---
17:16<SDGathman>Hello?
--- Sat Sep 16 16:19:16 UTC 2006 ---
16:19<SDGathman>hello?
16:21<Julian>Sorry for being late!
16:22<SDGathman>How many do we have?
16:23<Julian>3, as far as I see.
16:25<SDGathman>Got pyspf-1.7 published. Got lots of test suite done. Fixed pyspf to pass test suite - ready for 1.8.
16:26<Julian>Wow.
16:26<Julian>Sounds good.
16:26<Julian>I still haven't managed to take up the remaining work on Mail::SPF.
16:26<SDGathman>Haven't heard of anyone else running test suite :-(
16:29<SDGathman>The C people don't seem to like bypassing DNS for testing.
16:31<Julian>I need to catch up on spf-devel.
17:28<willix>be back
17:32<Julian>w00t! We have quorum.
17:32<Julian>What current issues are there?
17:32<willix>sorry I was going to be in last weekend but last minute out with family
17:33<Julian>willix: No harm done, I wasn't there in time, either. (I was standing in a data center, fixing my server way past meeting time.)
17:34<Julian>I haven't been tracking the DKIM list. Have they come to any conclusions wrt. policy?
17:34<willix>the discussiong there are frightenining
17:35<willix>give voice to ScottK he probably has something to say about it
17:35<Julian>How so?
17:35<Julian>hi ScottK
17:35<willix>JohnL/DaveC are trying hard to get rid of SSP all together
17:35<Julian>ScottK: Can you tell us about the DKIM policy debate?
17:36<Julian>Uhh.
17:36<Julian>Perhaps they think that SPF would be a better idea for policy purposes? OK, just kidding.
17:36<willix>Latest proposal from Yahoo/Cisco team has policy in specialized DNS recrod (non TXT) guess how it will affect adoption
17:37<Julian>Why won't they think about using SPF for that?
17:37<willix>3rd-party signers and email-list support are getting killed
17:37<willix>etc
17:38<SDGathman>So is that going to kill SPF also? Or just make DKIM unattractive?
17:38<willix>Does open opportunities for SPF to help with additional syntax for DKIM in modifier
17:38<Julian>I never got the point of 3rd party signers anyway. But perhaps I'm just stupid.
17:38<ScottK>Hi
17:38<Julian>How would SPF get killed by whatever the DKIM people choose to do?
17:39<SDGathman>I'm not following the details, but MS is an old hand at doing that. I know DKIM folks are not MS, but ...
17:39<ScottK>I would say that the new RR approach is a subtle was to kill SSP.
17:39<Julian>Well, at least they're not trying to build redundant policy infrastructure in parallel to SPF.
17:40<ScottK>Many people just want a stable identifier to put into a proprietary reputation system out of DKIM and nothing more.
17:40<ScottK>Some people on the DKIM list are idiots too. Since this is archived, I won't say who I think is in what catagory.
17:41<SDGathman>Aren't there some idiots on the SPF list?
17:41<ScottK>There are also people who think that SSP is just fundamentally flawed.
17:41<Julian>Yeah, I think when building SPF++ we'll have to distinguish between authenticating a certain identity (scope) vs. defining complex sender policies w/o inherently authenticating specific identities.
17:41<ScottK>Yes to idiots on SPF list, but there are rather fewer of them with a loud voice these days.
17:42<ScottK>So there are lots of anti-voices with a variety of reasons for being anti.
17:42<Julian>shew: You there?
17:43<willix>As I said we have opportunity to get SPF to become more general policy record
17:43<ScottK>Personally, I think DKIM without SSP gives you not much.
17:43<Julian>It's easy to be anti something. It's harder to be _for_ something.
17:43<Julian>willix: Good to know.
17:44<Julian>SDGathman: Was it you who wanted to redo the new website's front page?
17:44<willix>That however would be significantly opposed by people involved with DKIM (yahoo is very much against SPF as you know) and may not be supported by "industry" who will choose proprietary solutions
17:45<willix>and try to force those proprietary solutions end-users...
17:45<SDGathman>No - I like the new.openspf.org front page.
17:45<SDGathman>I hate the www.openspf.org page
17:45<Julian>Then it probably was shew.
17:45<willix>This may end up being opensource vs industry like situation like it happened with SPF vs SenderID
17:45<ScottK>On that front, I personally liked the idea the Weitse Venema proposed of using the DKIM signing identity in combination with a local list of accepted identities mangage much like SSH manages public keys.
17:45<SDGathman>willix, that is too bad. DKIM is a much better idea than sender-id.
17:45<Julian>I have only recently managed to resume the work on Mail::SPF, which the new wizard shall be built upon.
17:46<ScottK>Speaking of Sender ID, did you all see the article on MS agreeing to a patent truce wrt open source on some web standards?
17:46<SDGathman>Does that apply to email standards?
17:47<SDGathman>(You have to parse every syllable with MS)
17:47<willix>The bad thing is also that email & anti-spam field unlike others are highly dominated by "industry" rather then open-source or open-standards
17:47<Julian>Well, S-ID isn't such a bad idea, I think. It's just that PRA confuses things, and S-ID abuses v=spf1 records.
17:47<Julian>Yeah, I saw that MS standards initiative.
17:47<willix>Scott - what article?
17:47<willix>Can you send link to spf-discuss
17:47<SDGathman>I say it on groklaw.net
17:48<Julian>grumpy posted a link on #spf.
17:48<ScottK>No, it did not include e-mail standards, but I think it might be an opening.
17:48<ScottK>http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx#EIB
17:48<Julian>http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx
17:48<Julian>Uh, right.
17:49<ScottK>Already sent to spf-discuss on Friday.
17:49<ScottK>At least it was Friday here. It would have still been late Thursday for at least one of you.
17:51<ScottK>Anyone here going to the next IETF in San Diego?
17:51<willix>I probably will be at next IETF
17:51<ScottK>Are you going to go to the DKIM session?
17:52<willix>unless it collides with CRISP, I'll
17:52<ScottK>The plan to close out SSP requirements there (subject to confirmation on the list no doubt), so that might be an important event to show up for.
17:52<ScottK>The/They
17:53<willix>the session is dominated by DaveC supporters
17:53<willix>using open-meeting to push for stronger policy would be close to impossible
17:53<ScottK>No doubt, but is it important to get a dissent heard and on the record?
17:54<willix>Understood
17:54<ScottK>As the only west coast USA person here, I think you are nominated.
17:56<willix>:) Its not really babout West Cost vs somewhere else, but it would be good if other people from SPF attended IETF more frequently especially if we're to try to get it to standard later
17:58<Julian>I have a hard time visiting the U.S.. I just can't afford it ATM. Besides I really don't like the entry regulations.
17:58<Julian>(... don't like being treated as a potential terrorist.)
17:59<ScottK>Agreed, but at least for me it isn't affordable since it's not something I'm funded to do.
17:59<Julian>Perhaps when IETF visits Europe again...
18:00<willix>Spring 2007 - Prague. Do you volunteer?
18:01<Julian>Can't say at this time.
18:01<Julian>But it might work out.
18:03<willix>anyway we should probably move on with council & spf business, we can talk more about DKIM on the list when things are more clear
18:03<Julian>There's no meeting agenda today.
18:03<willix>aha
18:03<Julian>Remember, this is not even a formal meeting yet.
18:04<SDGathman>I didn't do any of the web page rewriting I promised.
18:04<ScottK>OK. Since you have a quorum you might want to decide something about see if MS would include SID in their patent peace.
18:04<ScottK>I'll go back to lurking now.
18:04<willix>well we still have some issues to discuss postponed from last time
18:04<Julian>ScottK: Shew isn't really present, I think.
18:04<willix>- MarkK is still missing?
18:05<Julian>Yeah. Didn't manage to get him on the phone yet.
18:05<Julian>I wonder what is up.
18:05<willix>wait until end of September and then put it on agenda?
18:06<Julian>Probably.
18:07<willix>Regarding SID, anyone who talked to MS before wants to volunteer to write them about that open-promise?
18:07<Julian>grumpy?
18:07<Julian>I never really talked to them directly.
18:08<willix>Personally by writing we maybe asserting that we agree that their patent is valid, which I think it is not considering prior work
18:08<Julian>Meng isn't here these days, it seems.
18:08<Julian>Well, you can't dismiss prior art by saying anything. If something is prior art, then it's prior art.
18:09<SDGathman>How about some embrace and extend:
18:10<SDGathman>Define spf2.0/from, spf2.0/whatever policy records for each 2822 header with an email.
18:10<Julian>Sure, why not? But then we could just as well do spf2.1 and fix the various spf2.0 mistakes.
18:11<SDGathman>Good point.
18:15<Julian>Gotta have some diner. bbl
18:15<shew>back.
18:16<shew>sorry for the lateness.
18:16<willix>you just missed Julian and SDGathman it seems :)
18:17<shew>Yeah. :-/
18:17<shew>I was hoping to get back in time for the meeting--especially after a few weeks of being here without us having meetings. :-/
18:18<shew>Well, I'll hang on here for a bit
18:19<willix>Read the irc log - we were discussing DKIM [so far failing] policy records
18:20<willix>you might want to participate in DKIM list - we need more people there who are pro-policy
18:39<shew>Okay.
19:29<Julian>back
19:44<SDGathman>back
19:45<Julian>$self->hack(Mail::SPF);
23:41<willix>

This report was generated at Sat Sep 16 23:59:59 UTC 2006.