http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.council hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.council/881 Oops. I propose to send that info to SPF ANNOUNCE, and put it on the main page as "news". Frank Frank Ellermann 2008-08-01T17:37:36 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.council/880 Please check out <http://www.openspf.org/RFC_4408/Errata>, the edit history claims "consensus that impossible labels are no TempError": | Be aware that if the domain owner uses macros (Section 8), it is possible | that this result is due to the checked identities having an unexpected | format. | | Please note that an unexpected <target-name> can be also handled as no match, | ideally implementations document how they handle such issues. The outcome | for an unexpected <domain-spec> before macro expansion might differ from the | outcome for an unexpected <target-name> after macro expansion. Frank Frank Ellermann 2008-04-14T05:41:32 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.council/879 For info, I've added links to <http://www.ietf.org/NOTEWELL.html> and <https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/nwg_list.cgi> on the <http://www.openspf.org/Forums> page next to the "SPF Discuss" entry, replacing the old "high traffic" indication. Frank Frank Ellermann 2008-03-20T14:31:15 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.council/865 Hi, Not much has happened in the past months but now a change will happen one way or the other. As you are probably well aware, the volunteer team is often not much more than just me myself and I. And I am going to quit as well. I think the council should decide how to continue with support, but of course I will not participate as a council member in that discussion. There are too much posts to the RT system which fall in one or more of the following categories: * a duplicate of a post to spf-help * a disgruntled person wishing to vent his/her anger * a lazy person which just copies the message and demands an explanation * spam Sorry, but I cannot cope with this anymore. I see three possible scenarios: 1: forget about RT (or alike) and let people post to spf-help 2: continue with RT (or alike) but with different people. If this is the way to go, ensure that a backlog of +2weeks does not occur anymore 3: let me continue but for a small fee to set my mind at ease. Let me explain #3: I think this wi Alex van den Bogaerdt 2007-12-15T14:26:32 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.council/864 Hi, I've recently forwarded the old question about the IETF list of "other lists" to the IPR WG again. See <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/4911> and <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ipr/5026> for the results. Does that help with your concerns ? IIRC Julian was already satisfied before, if somebody else agrees and nobody disagrees I'd take it as "go". Frank ------------------------------------------- Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com Frank Ellermann 2007-11-15T11:28:47 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.council/861 Jeff Macdonald wrote four months ago on the Discuss list: One of the papers was about Sender ID and states: | Sender ID acquires the sender's domain from | the SMTP "MAIL FROM" or EHLO command or from | a message header field determined by the | Purported Responsible Adress (PRA). In other words spf2.0/mfrom really is supposed to be the same as v=spf1, and it's good when the next Authentication-Results Internet Draft adds an smtp.helo row to Sender ID, it already has this for SPF. Frank References: http://ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/spamsummit/Microsoft-Sender -ID-Framework.pdf http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header-09 -- My reply to spf-discuss run into some mailing list problems, this attempt is a test (after *maybe* resubscribing GMane) ------------------------------------------- Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com Frank Ellermann 2007-11-13T14:01:14 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.council/860 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear subscribers to the SPF mailing lists, as the list moderators have been plagued for years now by automatic replies sent by the auto-responders of inconsiderate subscribers, these mailing lists' policy on the tolerance of such auto-replies is about to change, effective immediately. Auto-responders sending automatic messages (such as vacation messages) in reply to mailing list messages (be they directed to the message's author or, worse, to the entire mailing list) constitute rude and anti-social behavior, as they harass the list's subscribers, or even pollute the list, with irrelevant information. From now on, if your auto-responder gets caught sending auto-replies to postings on the SPF mailing lists, your subscription will be deactivated until it has been demonstrably fixed. This is your only warning. Such mailing list postings can be recognized from a "Precedence: bulk", "Precedence: list", or some "List-ID:" header. If you haven't already, Julian Mehnle 2007-07-27T22:36:23 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.council/857 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, I apologize for not having managed to set up a council meeting for a while now. (I've been pretty much occupied with paid work and exams. Real life should be a bit easier on me for the next few months, though.) Let's try to get a meeting going within the coming weeks, shall we? I have yet to contact the IETF dnsop WG chairs, Paul Vixie, et al. about the "bogus TLD root server queries" issue, so there's nothing to report from that front. There are a few other things that require our attention, though (I may be missing some, so please bring up stuff I forgot): * Submit spf-discuss to the "others" list? ("note well" thread) * Status of the support team? Measures to undertake? * More potential RFC 4408 errata[1], plus the "RFC 2181 5/1" issue * The RFC 4408 compliance logo: license terms, etc. * Examine project status and update the project agenda[2] * Prospects for SPFv3? (Not all of these items need to be addressed immediately, b Julian Mehnle 2007-06-22T23:21:51 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.council/855 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, we just lost GMANE association of spf-deployment again. Does anyone know whether that was intentional? Julian. - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: Activity Report for spf-deployment Date: Wednesday, 2007 June 13 15:33 From: listbox+reports< at >v2.listbox.com To: julian< at >mehnle.net In the last 7 days, New Subscribers: 0 Voluntary Unsubscriptions: 1 ngomssd-spf-deployment-1< at >m.gmane.org (Gmane Administrator) Unsubscriptions due to Bouncing: 0 Total number of subscribers: 538 To review your subscriber list, please visit http://v2.listbox.com/login/subscriber-list.html Cheers The Listbox Robot -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD4DBQFGcCS0wL7PKlBZWjsRAhaBAKCNRfUe1KZU4Jau610HrTLgfRsMhwCWPnf7 sPWwuBmH8T9FkiSYj7OYsA== =GQzT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------- Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com Julian Mehnle 2007-06-13T17:09:08 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.council/853 Hi, how about a meeting 2007-06-02 ? Administrivia, Reply-To spf-discuss didn't work here, I've reset the old Reply-To list, sorry: <http://mid.gmane.org/4650ABED.3E2D< at >xyzzy.claranet.de> Frank ------------------------------------------- Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com Frank Ellermann 2007-05-20T20:32:59 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.council/844 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, I was planning to get a meeting set up for this Saturday, but as the most pressing issues at this time are the various RFC 4408 errata, which require prior discussion on spf-discuss, it seems I failed to do so in sufficient advance. Therefore there won't be a meeting this week-end. I am going to raise the pending errata for discussion on spf-discuss in a structured way within the next few days, however, so we may be able to process the first batch of errata on the coming week-end, provided this doesn't conflict with your Easter holiday plans. Say, on Saturday 2007-04-07 at 16:00 UTC (this should be DST for all of us)? Julian. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGDbIXwL7PKlBZWjsRApuaAKCzglqTj6lj23GsZoJkp7XLa4cZGQCdEKmp YVOmFIubF/7gpDI6ekV04xU= =0VBf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------- Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com Julian Mehnle 2007-03-31T00:57:57 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.council/843 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/2007/03/03_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 Feb 24 13:22:14 UTC 2007 --- 13:22 <alex_b> ScottK: are you here? 13:41 <alex_b> ScottK: never mind. --- Sat Mar 3 15:50:14 UTC 2007 --- 15:50 <Julian> T = -10min 15:50 <Julian> If no one objects, we can just as well start now. 15:51 <ScottK> No objection, just give me 60 seconds to refill my coffee. 15:52 <Julian> Meeting agenda: http://archi Wayne Schlitt 2007-03-04T00:00:18 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.council/838 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, I don't think we urgently need to have a meeting this week, and as a matter of fact I won't be able to make a meeting on this Saturday in any case. However if you want to meet this week-end anyway, don't hesitate to go ahead. Otherwise, I'd say we meet again on 2007-03-03. For the record, these are discussion items I currently have on my list: * How public should the "draft-otis-spf-dos-exploit Analysis" page <http://www.openspf.org/draft-otis-spf-dos-exploit_Analysis> be? (Wayne/Julian) * Conclusions on the DDoS issue * Conclusions on the project's involvement in the BITS proceedings * Control over the openspf.* name service? (Wayne) * Compliance logo license terms? * Have a directory of commercial consulting services on the SPF website? * The contact form support effort * Report: status of the support team? * Change modus operandi of RT support team and/or the RT instal- lation? * Broaden scope of Julian Mehnle 2007-02-21T22:20:08 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.council/837 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/2007/02/17_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 Feb 17 16:06:59 UTC 2007 --- 16:06 <Julian> grumpy: Are you there? 16:08 <Julian> ScottK: Are you there? 16:12 <SDGathman> Hello 16:13 <Julian> hi all! 16:13 <alex_b> hi everybody, seems we're complete now 16:13 <Julian> ScottK: ping 16:15 <SDGathman> Crumble, I haven't done the summary yet. 16:16 <Julian> SDGathman: Not a big problem. I don't think we'll Wayne Schlitt 2007-02-18T00:00:16 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.council/833 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Quoting <http://www.openspf.org/Project_Infrastructure#ca>: There is an "openspf.org" OpenSSL (CA.pl-managed) certification authority in earbone:/etc/ssl/cas/openspf.org/. The CA's private key is protected with a passphrase, which is known to me. (Wayne, do you have a PGP key so I can send you the passphrase?) The CA has a public signing certificate[1]. References: 1. http://www.openspf.org/blobs/openspf.org-ca.pem -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFzmmFwL7PKlBZWjsRAporAKDWuprh2hBLmXWdwvebLm261dEXegCfb32Q /LcVJyV0d4GjevSL6fYbb3g= =0n2F -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------- Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com Julian Mehnle 2007-02-11T00:55:33 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.council/832 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Frank, I have configured the website to support HTTPS + Basic Auth access. If you go to <https://www.openspf.org/auth>, it will use Basic Auth instead of Digest Auth. <https://www.openspf.org> uses an SSL certificate signed by our newly created "openspf.org" CA (see my following message to spf-council). I am having trouble accessing <https://www.openspf.org> with Internet Explorer, however it works fine with Firefox and Opera. Scott reported that it works with Konqueror, too. I think the IE problem might have something to do with an incompatibility of the SSL certificate, however I totally lack the impetus to debug it. You're going to use some other "Mozilla 3.0" browser anyway. Let me know if you have any problems. Your password is the same as the one I had originally sent you for the Subversion repository on 2006-09-21 (ask if you don't have it anymore). You can change it by clicking on the "Change Password" link in the toolbar at the t Julian Mehnle 2007-02-11T00:28:31 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.council/831 I requested to have different times during DST, so it seems only fair that I figure out how this works out. Motion: The 2007 council has a regular slot for optional meetings: on Saturdays, 16:00..18:00 UTC (15:00..17:00 UTC during DST times). USA: DST starts on Sun. March 11, 2007 at 02:00 local standard time (07:00 UTC) DST ends on Sun. November 4, 2007 at 02:00 local daylight time (06:00 UTC) EU: DST starts on Sun. March 25, 2007 at 01:00 UTC (02:00 LT for .de and .nl) DST ends on Sun. October 28, 2007 at 01:00 UTC (03:00 LT for .de and .nl) Meetings every saturday (tentative): [no meeting this saturday 10/2] 2007-02-17 16:00-18:00 UTC 2007-02-24 16:00-18:00 UTC 2007-03-03 16:00-18:00 UTC 2007-03-10 16:00-18:00 UTC 2007-03-17 15:00-17:00 UTC * DST in USA, not yet in EU 2007-03-24 17:00-17:00 UTC * DST in USA, not yet in EU 2007-03-31 15:00-17:00 UTC DST both in EU and in USA ... 2007-10-27 15:00-17:00 UTC DST both in EU and in USA 2007-11-03 15:00-17:00 UTC * DST in USA, no Alex van den Bogaerdt 2007-02-10T04:06:54 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.council/829 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/2007/02/09_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 --- Mon Feb 5 22:47:55 UTC 2007 --- 22:47 <Bouncer> ScottK: Voila. 22:55 <ScottK> Yes. It works. --- Wed Feb 7 20:23:10 UTC 2007 --- 20:23 <alex_b> wb julian. time for a new laptop? --- Fri Feb 9 16:45:00 UTC 2007 --- 16:45 <alex_b> 15 minutes to the meeting 16:45 <Julian> Yup. 16:54 <Julian> hi xyzzy 17:02 <alex_b> hi all; everybody here? 17:04 <Julian> Stua Wayne Schlitt 2007-02-10T00:00:22 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.council/823 Note: Making a new post to avoid moderation. Alex, If you need help getting IRC setup feel free to e-mail me offlist. IIRC, the forums page gives details on where to go. You can try things out on the #spf channel. Someone is usually there. Julian, Please don't forget to modify the #spf-council/private setup so new council members have voice/access (I didn't yesterday when I looked). Scott K ------------------------------------------- Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com Scott Kitterman 2007-02-05T16:05:19 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.council/816 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear new council, the 2007 council elections[1] being concluded, these are the members of the 2nd council[2]: Alex van den Bogaerdt <alex< at >ergens.op.het.net> Frank Ellermann <nobody< at >xyzzy.claranet.de> Stuart D. Gathman <stuart< at >bmsi.com> Scott Kitterman <scott< at >kitterman.com> Julian Mehnle <julian< at >mehnle.net> I have subscribed the new members Alex, Frank, and Scott to the spf-council and spf-private council mailing lists[3]. I have also created system and website accounts for them on the project's webserver, earbone.openspf.org (owned by Wayne). (Credentials will be sent separately.) Julian, for the old council. References: 1. http://www.openspf.org/Council_Election/2007-01 2. http://www.openspf.org/Council_Members 3. http://www.openspf.org/Council#information-resources -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFxfuEwL7PKlBZWjsRAk4zAJ93lnd7LcuG36HQJoRpervC6aEs6wCcDKXm m+PThhJGqci/wzbGDOVRADY= =dkaA -----END PGP SIG Julian Mehnle 2007-02-04T15:28:04 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spf.council/815 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 FYI. I switched spf-council into "List messages will come from: A Few People" mode on <http://v2.listbox.com/login/settings/about_list.html>. This enables us to explicitly approve posters again. - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: Re: List configuration: How to explicitly approve subscribers for posting? [PTN.20070202.0089P] Date: Saturday, 3. February 2007 15:39 From: Listbox Customer Support <support< at >listbox.com> To: Julian Mehnle <julian< at >mehnle.net> Julian: You can find that interface: - - under Settings-> Administrators - - under Subscribers-> Special - - directly at http://www.listbox.com/login/settings/senders.html - - on the specific subscriber's edit page under "Posting Privileges" Please note you can only specifically approve suubscribers for posting if they would not otherwise be able to post, i.e. all subscribers are not allowed to post to your list. If all subscribers are allowed to post to your list by default, y Julian Mehnle 2007-02-04T13:11:40 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.mail.spam.spf.council