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/2006/09/23_irc_log.html.
IRC nicknames:
| Julian | Julian Mehnle |
| MarkK | Mark Kramer (asarian-host.net) |
| SDGathman | Stuart Gathman |
| shew | Mark Shewmaker |
| willix | William Leibzon |
| freeside | Meng Weng Wong |
| gconnor | Greg Connor |
| grumpy | Wayne Schlitt |
| --- Sat Sep 23 16:10:47 UTC 2006 --- | ||
| 16:10 | <SDGathman> | hello? |
| 16:22 | <shew> | Hello. |
| 16:22 | <SDGathman> | Time for our informal meeting. |
| 16:25 | <shew> | I think it's at 1pm eastern, not noon eastern. |
| 16:25 | <shew> | Hello Julian. |
| 16:26 | <SDGathman> | Oh, right. |
| 16:26 | <Julian> | hi there |
| 16:26 | <Julian> | Once again sorry for being late. |
| 16:26 | <SDGathman> | Not late. |
| 16:27 | <Julian> | Huh? |
| 16:27 | <Julian> | I thought we wanted to meet informally on Saturdays at 16:00 UTC? |
| 16:28 | <Julian> | It's 16:28 UTC now. |
| 16:28 | <SDGathman> | I'll have to check. Shew and I though it was 17:00 UTC. |
| 16:29 | <Julian> | I might be wrong, but I don't think so. |
| 16:29 | <Julian> | Oh, right. |
| 16:29 | <SDGathman> | Although I arrived at 12 thinking it was 17:00 ET, not remembering DST. :-) |
| 16:29 | <Julian> | 17:00 UTC is correct. |
| 16:30 | <SDGathman> | Irony - a company with the domain "onlinesecure.com" with no SPF record, being used for forged "PayPal security" emails.... |
| 16:31 | <Julian> | w00t! I'm not late! |
| 16:33 | <SDGathman> | AAA.com being used to send forged "online pharmacy" emails. |
| 16:34 | <SDGathman> | What do you think about showcasing (emabarassing) some of these organizations on the web site to illustrate why SPF is needed? |
| 16:34 | <SDGathman> | Or is that too negative? |
| 16:36 | <Julian> | Instead we should contact them directly, and after they decided to deploy SPF, we then should showcase them. |
| 16:36 | * | shew agrees with Julian. |
| 16:36 | <SDGathman> | Agreed. |
| 16:37 | <SDGathman> | Just reviewing my mail logs and chuckling over who is getting forged... |
| 16:38 | <SDGathman> | I got some scary forgeries from a political candidate I am supporting. |
| 16:38 | <SDGathman> | The emails were not from the candidate, but pretended to be. Had a link to some hex encoded website (https of course) were you could make additional contributions to the candidate. |
| 16:39 | <SDGathman> | Who knows where the money would go ... |
| 16:39 | <SDGathman> | I emailed the campaign staff, but they haven't responded. |
| 16:40 | <SDGathman> | There is always the possibility that the emails were actually from the candidates incompetent IT staff... |
| 16:57 | <Julian> | The process of making the test suite (and implementing SPF libs, thereby having to interpret the spec) is a great source of insight. |
| 16:57 | <Julian> | Uh, I confused #spf with #spf-council. |