+Mar 23 19:08:55 <pepsi> 1. Chairmans opening remarks
+Mar 23 19:09:10 <pepsi> Hello everyone it is time to begin the 2nd OverChat committee meeting
+Mar 23 19:09:25 <smat> Hi pepsi, glad to be here
+Mar 23 19:09:31 <blahdy-bleh> Hi there, glad to be here =)
+Mar 23 19:09:39 <pepsi> First on todays agenda we shall discuss Should OverChat groups ignore/support/enforce instances.
+Mar 23 19:10:16 <blahdy-bleh> What exactly does it mean by ignore/support/enforce instances?
+Mar 23 19:10:17 <DDRP> My opinion is that instances cause a fight and needless retries of people attempting to re-enter a chat
+Mar 23 19:10:26 <blahdy-bleh> Ah
+Mar 23 19:10:52 <pepsi> like aim haesu
+Mar 23 19:10:56 <blahdy-bleh> I see.
+Mar 23 19:11:01 --> SBeast (~Dagsylad@the.pub.net) has joined #Overchat
+Mar 23 19:11:03 <pepsi> i feel that it depends on the amount of users allowed in a single room
+Mar 23 19:11:10 <blahdy-bleh> There must be an ignore function in the chat room.
+Mar 23 19:11:19 <DDRP> So what I am saying is that should we even support them, let alone enforce them
+Mar 23 19:11:26 <h00t`> I agree with DDRP, in that if an ignore feature is applied to the service, a person has the ability to limit what traffic is viewed while in a particular room.
+Mar 23 19:11:37 <pepsi> thinks that when the room is being created that the creator should be able to choose the amount of users allowed
+Mar 23 19:12:02 <DDRP> Yes but on IRC it's a hard limit, no new instance is created, generally
+Mar 23 19:12:03 <blahdy-bleh> Yes. but now what about public chat rooms? Would we have any?
+Mar 23 19:12:11 <blahdy-bleh> or is it irc-like moderated chat rooms only?
+Mar 23 19:12:26 <DDRP> Yes there are 6 exchanges
+Mar 23 19:12:32 <blahdy-bleh> Ah okay
+Mar 23 19:12:36 <DDRP> General is not moderated
+Mar 23 19:12:45 <DDRP> unless a god enters it and decides to clear out the muck
+Mar 23 19:13:00 <h00t`> ::chuckle:: : x
+Mar 23 19:13:07 <blahdy-bleh> yea
+Mar 23 19:13:10 <pepsi> dave whats the max amount of users per room
+Mar 23 19:13:24 <DDRP> Well there is currently no hard coded limit
+Mar 23 19:13:35 <blahdy-bleh> may be 36?
+Mar 23 19:13:41 <DDRP> If that does change it will only be a maximum for technical reasons like 2048
+Mar 23 19:13:43 <DDRP> or something
+Mar 23 19:13:58 <smat> holy shit, that's alota chatters!
+Mar 23 19:14:03 <DDRP> but if I use a limked list there will be no limit to start with
+Mar 23 19:14:19 <pepsi> does anyone else like the idea of the creator being able to choose the amount of maximum users
+Mar 23 19:14:21 <DDRP> I've seen chats with 200 people in them
+Mar 23 19:14:26 <pepsi> ?
+Mar 23 19:14:35 <blahdy-bleh> Now you must think of the server load however..
+Mar 23 19:14:39 <blahdy-bleh> When we have a lot of users
+Mar 23 19:14:49 <blahdy-bleh> chat room swith 200+ users may be too much... i dunno
+Mar 23 19:14:53 <blahdy-bleh> rooms with*
+Mar 23 19:15:14 <DDRP> Yes i would be relaying a lot of messages
+Mar 23 19:15:29 <h00t`> Would it make a difference if there are 200 in one room, or 40 in 5 rooms, wouldn't the load be the same?
+Mar 23 19:15:30 <blahdy-bleh> I think what we must do is create seperate servers for chat services only.
+Mar 23 19:15:30 <DDRP> but when we have that many users, hopefully we could make cash from it to pay for bandwidth somewhere
+Mar 23 19:15:44 <blahdy-bleh> Have this amount of server for IM/login
+Mar 23 19:15:49 <blahdy-bleh> and have another set of servers for chat rooms
+Mar 23 19:15:50 * SBeast likes pepsi's idea, its like when an irc operator limits the max uses in a channel innit
+Mar 23 19:15:53 <blahdy-bleh> to distribute the load
+Mar 23 19:16:11 <blahdy-bleh> Once we have many users, buying bandwidth is not an issue.
+Mar 23 19:16:12 <pepsi> i agree with haesu
+Mar 23 19:16:24 <DDRP> Yeah I like the design issue of having seperate chat servers for each exchange
+Mar 23 19:16:29 <blahdy-bleh> Bandwidth is quite cheap in this area if more bandwidth needs to be alloted for overchat network
+Mar 23 19:16:42 <DDRP> it would of course cause possible security implications and a lot of work but it may be worth it in the long run
+Mar 23 19:16:58 <DDRP> perhaps making chat a part of overchatd and then later rewritng as a seperate exchange as demand grows
+Mar 23 19:17:40 <blahdy-bleh> could do that yes
+Mar 23 19:18:07 <blahdy-bleh> but first of all the next critical part after IM/ocquery fix is being able to network-link the official servers
+Mar 23 19:18:17 <blahdy-bleh> obviously one server cannot hold thousand users.
+Mar 23 19:18:58 <DDRP> Yeah. I really have no clue how we'll do it but I know it has to be done. It will need to be done over SSL
+Mar 23 19:18:59 <blahdy-bleh> acemiles is here
+Mar 23 19:19:08 <blahdy-bleh> well
+Mar 23 19:19:15 <blahdy-bleh> SSL is not necessary.
+Mar 23 19:19:23 <blahdy-bleh> make network-links on a seperate port number
+Mar 23 19:19:26 <pepsi> SBeast: if someone would seccond you agreeing with me then committee will have passed my idea =X
+Mar 23 19:19:33 <smat> can one server automatically bounce to another if it's full?
+Mar 23 19:19:38 <blahdy-bleh> then the supreme mystic controller (me) can filter out that port for rest of the network except the server subnet ;)
+Mar 23 19:19:43 <DDRP> But then they'd all run on one machine, wouldn't they?
+Mar 23 19:19:56 * SBeast seconds pepsi's idea
+Mar 23 19:20:00 <blahdy-bleh> DDRP: say we have two servers
+Mar 23 19:20:14 <blahdy-bleh> each using like say 9999 port for linking each other
+Mar 23 19:20:22 <blahdy-bleh> port 9999 will be filtered out behind the overchat network area
+Mar 23 19:20:27 <blahdy-bleh> so that no one can intercept the servers
+Mar 23 19:20:31 <smat> kinda like how photoshop uses hd space for ram if it needs it?
+Mar 23 19:20:40 <smat> or should i just shutup?
+Mar 23 19:20:41 <DDRP> Understood
+Mar 23 19:20:48 <blahdy-bleh> smat: no keep going we are listening :)
+Mar 23 19:20:55 <smat> yay!
+Mar 23 19:21:09 <smat> so in other words the servers are linked (by a lan?)
+Mar 23 19:21:33 <blahdy-bleh> yes
+Mar 23 19:21:41 <smat> and they pool resources, sorta thing
+Mar 23 19:21:41 <blahdy-bleh> the overchat servers will be in their own LAN
+Mar 23 19:21:41 <smat> sweet!
+Mar 23 19:21:41 <blahdy-bleh> and they will be linked each other to distribute server load.
+Mar 23 19:21:41 <smat> that rocks
+Mar 23 19:21:47 <h00t`> ::nod::
+Mar 23 19:21:54 * smat is so proud of herself right now
+Mar 23 19:21:58 <blahdy-bleh> and then the switch that brings the overchat LAN to the internet filters out critical/confidential port numbers that is used to link the servers.
+Mar 23 19:21:58 <h00t`> ::is too:: : x
+Mar 23 19:22:02 <DDRP> I think I can do it but I'm still confused about migration, which is used by AIM, for example to actually move a user to another server if demand grows, it's done absolutely transparently, I mean how does one move somebody's socket to another machine?
+Mar 23 19:22:04 <smat> i hope someone is logging this for posterity
+Mar 23 19:22:08 <blahdy-bleh> so that no one from the internet can intercept the server operations.
+Mar 23 19:22:28 <smat> ty h00t =)
+Mar 23 19:22:33 <blahdy-bleh> DDRP: may be we could look at some RFCs for irc?
+Mar 23 19:22:33 <smat> right
+Mar 23 19:22:38 <blahdy-bleh> and some source code for hybrid?
+Mar 23 19:22:57 <DDRP> Good plan
+Mar 23 19:23:15 <DDRP> I'm not sure IRC does it however,
+Mar 23 19:23:24 <DDRP> I think when one is on one server one stays there
+Mar 23 19:23:26 <DDRP> until one reconnects
+Mar 23 19:23:41 <blahdy-bleh> hmm that's true
+Mar 23 19:23:52 <blahdy-bleh> and one server goes down, then they disconnect
+Mar 23 19:23:52 <blahdy-bleh> due to network split
+Mar 23 19:24:12 <blahdy-bleh> isn't the OSCAR protocol open sourced anyway?
+Mar 23 19:24:16 <DDRP> Nah
+Mar 23 19:24:17 <h00t`> seems impossible for some users to be on one server, other users on another, and all be in the same chat. Am I wrong?
+Mar 23 19:24:21 <blahdy-bleh> I think AOL released some of it.
+Mar 23 19:24:21 <smat> could say the "a" server look at the others in the lan as just simple h/ds?
+Mar 23 19:24:22 <DDRP> Not unless some miracle happened
+Mar 23 19:24:40 <DDRP> h00t`: You are wrong =)
+Mar 23 19:24:44 <SBeast> toc is opensource :-X
+Mar 23 19:24:54 <h00t`> =)
+Mar 23 19:25:18 <DDRP> Yeah but TOC is not really open source
+Mar 23 19:25:22 <DDRP> Client side is open source
+Mar 23 19:25:24 <blahdy-bleh> DDRP: let's think of it this way...
+Mar 23 19:25:26 <DDRP> but the TOC proxy is closed
+Mar 23 19:25:35 <blahdy-bleh> for long term solutions
+Mar 23 19:25:41 <blahdy-bleh> i think this is what we must do
+Mar 23 19:25:49 <blahdy-bleh> we must have seperate servers that contain database of users
+Mar 23 19:25:54 <blahdy-bleh> and seperate servers that log users into the network
+Mar 23 19:26:02 <blahdy-bleh> and seperate servers for IM+chat
+Mar 23 19:26:09 <blahdy-bleh> basically the useres authenticate into the network
+Mar 23 19:26:13 <blahdy-bleh> instead of single server
+Mar 23 19:26:39 <DDRP> The cookie mechanism =/
+Mar 23 19:26:50 <blahdy-bleh> the login servers are where they authenticate into, then login serveres makes sure that data base servers are updated to ensure that user is 'logged in'
+Mar 23 19:27:07 <blahdy-bleh> then IM and chatting servers would query the database servers to actually find online users
+Mar 23 19:27:19 <blahdy-bleh> i do believe thats how AIM is setup in the backend
+Mar 23 19:27:43 <blahdy-bleh> so it doesnt matter if a chatting server goes down, the users are logged into database servers anyway
+Mar 23 19:27:52 <DDRP> Yes that would work. I can do that.
+Mar 23 19:28:02 <smat> cool
+Mar 23 19:28:19 <h00t`> must be so, I remember times when IMs were not available, and buddy lists even, but general chat rooms were accessable.
+Mar 23 19:28:22 <DDRP> No obvious security issue comes to mind
+Mar 23 19:28:25 <blahdy-bleh> exactly
+Mar 23 19:28:27 <DDRP> It can work I think
+Mar 23 19:28:41 <blahdy-bleh> security is not a huge issue right now between the servers.
+Mar 23 19:28:47 <DDRP> I've got to ensure double logins are impossible of course, which they currently are not
+Mar 23 19:28:51 <blahdy-bleh> b/c it will be filtered by the upstream switch
+Mar 23 19:28:59 <blahdy-bleh> yes
+Mar 23 19:29:13 <blahdy-bleh> so we'd eventually have seperate set of servers for database, login, and chatting+IM
+Mar 23 19:29:19 <blahdy-bleh> and many be eventually buddylist server
+Mar 23 19:29:20 <DDRP> It would make the service more reliable
+Mar 23 19:29:25 <h00t`> clone free?
+Mar 23 19:29:30 <smat> clone free would be awesome
+Mar 23 19:29:35 <h00t`> ::cheers::
+Mar 23 19:29:35 <blahdy-bleh> the login servers are the ones that interact with users to let them into our network
+Mar 23 19:29:45 <blahdy-bleh> the users login thru the login servers, then login servers update the databases on the db servers
+Mar 23 19:29:51 <blahdy-bleh> then db servers are the ones that hold users online.
+Mar 23 19:29:54 <pepsi> i agree clone free =X
+Mar 23 19:30:25 <DDRP> OK so, I would scrap the online list
+Mar 23 19:30:29 <smat> ty pepsi
+Mar 23 19:30:34 <DDRP> (what is currently in server_core)
+Mar 23 19:30:50 <blahdy-bleh> yea that need to go on seperate server
+Mar 23 19:30:56 <blahdy-bleh> and the servers need to link each other
+Mar 23 19:31:08 <blahdy-bleh> try to make them link to a port otehr than 3277 or whatever we use for users
+Mar 23 19:31:27 <DDRP> I declare that 327x is reserved for OverChat
+Mar 23 19:31:28 <DDRP> >=)
+Mar 23 19:31:35 <DDRP> We are currently using 7,8,9
+Mar 23 19:31:40 <DDRP> 8 == DLOB
+Mar 23 19:31:44 <blahdy-bleh> hehe
+Mar 23 19:31:50 <smat> if you make it clone-free does that mean that users couldnt have multiple nicks, or does that mean they simply couldnt use more than one nick?
+Mar 23 19:31:58 <blahdy-bleh> use 3270 for server operations then
+Mar 23 19:32:08 <smat> at the same time, i mean
+Mar 23 19:32:26 <pepsi> only ONE nick at a time smat
+Mar 23 19:32:26 <DDRP> This will involve a lot of restructuring
+Mar 23 19:32:32 <DDRP> I hope everybody realises this
+Mar 23 19:32:34 <smat> k
+Mar 23 19:32:49 <smat> but they could have diff nicks if they chose to?
+Mar 23 19:32:49 <pepsi> you can have 20 nicks but can only use one at a time
+Mar 23 19:32:54 <smat> okay, cool
+Mar 23 19:32:58 <smat> just wanted to clarify
+Mar 23 19:33:03 <DDRP> There is a subconversation going on here where some of you don't understand the clone concept
+Mar 23 19:33:23 <smat> i'm sorry david if that's my fault
+Mar 23 19:33:24 <DDRP> Currently pepsi may sign in to OverChat 200 times as pepsi
+Mar 23 19:33:28 <pepsi> i realise it dave but isnt that what a committees for?
+Mar 23 19:33:32 <DDRP> That will be stopped
+Mar 23 19:33:48 <DDRP> Only 8 nicknames may sign on from one IP address
+Mar 23 19:33:49 <smat> David, i'm not a programmer but i'm trying to understand
+Mar 23 19:33:56 <DDRP> purely for the sake of NAT
+Mar 23 19:34:02 <blahdy-bleh> ddrp that will be a problem.
+Mar 23 19:34:03 <DDRP> clones are officially not support
+Mar 23 19:34:07 <DDRP> they waste bandwidth
+Mar 23 19:34:12 <blahdy-bleh> ddrp there are organizations using NATs everywhere.
+Mar 23 19:34:17 <blahdy-bleh> Let me give you an example.
+Mar 23 19:34:30 <blahdy-bleh> Monster.com, a major internet company
+Mar 23 19:34:30 <blahdy-bleh> uses NAT for 9000 machines.
+Mar 23 19:34:35 <blahdy-bleh> clearly 8 per IP will not work.
+Mar 23 19:34:41 <DDRP> =o
+Mar 23 19:34:53 <DDRP> As I understand it, AIM limits 13 per IP
+Mar 23 19:34:58 <blahdy-bleh> just make it like aim.
+Mar 23 19:35:04 <blahdy-bleh> no
+Mar 23 19:35:19 <h00t`> DDRP: that references what is probably the answer to a question I had, if someone has the resources, i.e. bandwidth etc, could they possibly bog down the system by entering the same nick numerous times?
+Mar 23 19:35:24 <blahdy-bleh> i've signed on 30 times from different machines on a company network
+Mar 23 19:35:30 <blahdy-bleh> all simultaneously
+Mar 23 19:35:30 <blahdy-bleh> using different nicks of course
+Mar 23 19:35:40 <DDRP> hmm
+Mar 23 19:35:42 <blahdy-bleh> AOL clearly understands that there are coporations using NATs
+Mar 23 19:35:46 <DDRP> well what's a good level to prevent abuse?
+Mar 23 19:35:46 <blahdy-bleh> corporations*
+Mar 23 19:35:52 <blahdy-bleh> 13/IP definately is not going to work
+Mar 23 19:36:00 <blahdy-bleh> well.
+Mar 23 19:36:40 <blahdy-bleh> we could do this
+Mar 23 19:36:44 <blahdy-bleh> when the client software logs on
+Mar 23 19:36:53 <blahdy-bleh> it sends the server the machine's Ip address
+Mar 23 19:36:53 <blahdy-bleh> so even if its NATted
+Mar 23 19:36:58 <blahdy-bleh> the client sends the server the actual Ip
+Mar 23 19:37:05 <blahdy-bleh> actually, that won't really work very well either
+Mar 23 19:37:12 <blahdy-bleh> b/c there are networks using similar IP schemes using RFC1918
+Mar 23 19:37:19 <DDRP> It works until some script kiddies find a way around it
+Mar 23 19:37:37 <blahdy-bleh> well i dont think clone-free is something to really worry about right now though.
+Mar 23 19:37:42 <pepsi> brb
+Mar 23 19:37:53 <smat> i agree and was just about to make a suggestion if i may?
+Mar 23 19:38:02 <blahdy-bleh> sure
+Mar 23 19:38:08 <DDRP> smat: I don't know if you may, the chairman is gone =/
+Mar 23 19:38:11 <smat> i think this has raised an important issue
+Mar 23 19:38:27 <smat> david you're the supreme commander ...
+Mar 23 19:38:32 <blahdy-bleh> lol
+Mar 23 19:38:32 <blahdy-bleh> heh
+Mar 23 19:38:38 <smat> anyways
+Mar 23 19:38:38 <blahdy-bleh> smat: go for it
+Mar 23 19:38:42 <DDRP> What's the issue?
+Mar 23 19:38:56 <smat> my suggestion is that you programmers work on this and see what you can come up with for the next meeting
+Mar 23 19:39:05 <smat> rather than trying to hash out the complexities here
+Mar 23 19:39:23 <smat> the issue of cloning/multiple nicks, etc
+Mar 23 19:39:34 <DDRP> Well let's get back to the point of this thread. Instances of chats
+Mar 23 19:39:40 <DDRP> Are we going to support them?
+Mar 23 19:39:49 <smat> oay
+Mar 23 19:39:54 <smat> errr okay
+Mar 23 19:39:54 <h00t`> The commitee needs to be aware of the security concerns, a good dose of collective common sense can never hurt.
+Mar 23 19:40:09 * smat 2nds h00t
+Mar 23 19:40:13 <blahdy-bleh> Yes.
+Mar 23 19:40:34 <DDRP> A committee ignorant of the mechanisms in place is an ignorant and foolish one
+Mar 23 19:40:43 <blahdy-bleh> I think we should discuss about security during the network =-part
+Mar 23 19:40:58 <h00t`> aye.
+Mar 23 19:41:20 <smat> then perhaps i should leave or just be quiet?
+Mar 23 19:41:41 <h00t`> Wasn't the origanl issue at hand "allowing or disallowing size limits to chat"?
+Mar 23 19:41:51 <DDRP> Yes sir
+Mar 23 19:41:56 <DDRP> and what is your opinion?
+Mar 23 19:41:56 <h00t`> smat : no, please.
+Mar 23 19:42:04 <smat> ty h00t
+Mar 23 19:42:09 * SBeast has an idea, prolly a bag-o-****e but here go's ... when the clients log on, could they not drop a token or summut in some temp folder, and delete it when the client disconnects, and every time the user connects to an oc server, it looks for a token in some predefined location, if it finds it, it realises they are logged on already and don't let them access, kinda like cookies etcetc >=/
+Mar 23 19:42:26 <blahdy-bleh> SBeast: doing so will put severe load on the server.
+Mar 23 19:42:36 <SBeast> >=(
+Mar 23 19:42:49 <blahdy-bleh> file system operations on tons of user logins per second = disaster :-/
+Mar 23 19:42:54 <smat> nice try beast =\
+Mar 23 19:43:05 <DDRP> You don' need a token as a file, it will be marked in the database under their nickname
+Mar 23 19:43:15 <h00t`> If demand on the resouces of the server network is not an issue, I think it's unneccessary to deal with it right now, in leiu of more important security issues.
+Mar 23 19:43:15 <blahdy-bleh> hmm
+Mar 23 19:43:20 <blahdy-bleh> DDRP: that works
+Mar 23 19:43:25 <blahdy-bleh> SBeast: cool idea :)
+Mar 23 19:43:30 <blahdy-bleh> except that we can't do it in file systme based way
+Mar 23 19:43:36 <blahdy-bleh> gotta do it on DB style
+Mar 23 19:43:36 <SBeast> =)
+Mar 23 19:43:47 <DDRP> Yeah that's easy enough
+Mar 23 19:43:53 <DDRP> we already have a deleted flag on records
+Mar 23 19:43:58 <DDRP> I can just add a logged in flag
+Mar 23 19:43:59 <pepsi> i say we do not support instances
+Mar 23 19:44:05 <blahdy-bleh> Excuse me all committee members, but I must brb for about 10 minutes due to a critical issue that has just happened.
+Mar 23 19:44:08 <DDRP> all systems will share it to determine who is on
+Mar 23 19:44:14 <h00t`> Beasty: ::high five::
+Mar 23 19:44:18 <DDRP> OK Captain
+Mar 23 19:44:19 <smat> oh dear
+Mar 23 19:44:37 <DDRP> Well I happen to agree with not supporting instances
+Mar 23 19:44:42 <pepsi> sorry for leavin my step dad was beatin the fsck outta some d00d who littered in front of my house
+Mar 23 19:44:49 <DDRP> they just cause people to go in and out in and out in and out of a chat
+Mar 23 19:44:53 <smat> shell we recess in lieu of the chairman and the captain?
+Mar 23 19:44:54 <DDRP> trying to get into a better instance
+Mar 23 19:44:58 <pepsi> its passed instances WILL NOT be supported
+Mar 23 19:45:03 <pepsi> next agenda item...
+Mar 23 19:45:08 <smat> i agree with david
+Mar 23 19:45:13 <h00t`> agreed.
+Mar 23 19:45:30 <DDRP> Seems almost unanimous then =) What's next Mr. Chairman?
+Mar 23 19:46:02 <pepsi> in lieu?
+Mar 23 19:46:21 <smat> um, i wasnt aware you had returned pepsi, forgive me please
+Mar 23 19:46:27 <pepsi> should we conform the time of our meeting to internet standard time
+Mar 23 19:46:27 <pepsi> this was proposed by ed
+Mar 23 19:46:51 <pepsi> it is ok smatt =X
+Mar 23 19:46:59 <pepsi> but ed told me he was goin to propose it himself
+Mar 23 19:47:04 <h00t`> he withdrew the proposal.
+Mar 23 19:47:15 <pepsi> ok thanx h00t
+Mar 23 19:47:24 <DDRP> Yeah I confirm that
+Mar 23 19:47:25 <h00t`> I have a suggestion.
+Mar 23 19:47:30 <pepsi> it is a bit late but angel coulnt make it due to work
+Mar 23 19:47:36 <smat> i dont really care, this time of day suits me very well
+Mar 23 19:47:36 <DDRP> it was posted this morning that Ed had found many flaws in the system
+Mar 23 19:47:40 <DDRP> and no long supported it
+Mar 23 19:47:41 <pepsi> she told me earlier this week
+Mar 23 19:47:58 <pepsi> h00t can it wait for the arising matters?
+Mar 23 19:48:21 <pepsi> it is now time for Speech from the Superiour Mystic Controller
+Mar 23 19:48:27 <h00t`> It has to do with the time issue.
+Mar 23 19:48:32 <pepsi> ok then
+Mar 23 19:48:37 <pepsi> let it flow h00ter
+Mar 23 19:48:43 <smat> i propose we let h00t have his say
+Mar 23 19:48:52 <DDRP> er, seconded
+Mar 23 19:48:57 <pepsi> i agree smatty =)
+Mar 23 19:49:04 <smat> =) ty
+Mar 23 19:49:10 <h00t`> We could all bookmark a particular web page, which easily supplies the mean to adjust to time zone differences.
+Mar 23 19:49:15 <h00t`> http://www.worldtimezone.com/
+Mar 23 19:49:20 <smat> i second that proposal
+Mar 23 19:49:28 <smat> great idea
+Mar 23 19:49:33 <pepsi> i do aswell
+Mar 23 19:49:40 <pepsi> or j00 all can jus ask me
+Mar 23 19:49:50 <pepsi> id be more then happy to tell anyone =)
+Mar 23 19:49:55 <smat> lol i was too embarrased to ask you ...
+Mar 23 19:50:06 <h00t`> I'd hate to get rid of /me Mickey Mouse watch. =\
+Mar 23 19:50:09 <DDRP> Well there are people not here now which one wonders about
+Mar 23 19:50:11 <smat> i called my friend so i wouldnt look st00pid
+Mar 23 19:50:14 <DDRP> did they get confused?
+Mar 23 19:50:16 <smat> hehe h00t
+Mar 23 19:50:26 <smat> yea
+Mar 23 19:50:32 <pepsi> smatty dont be
+Mar 23 19:50:40 <smat> in any event may we vote on h00t's proposal?
+Mar 23 19:50:45 <smat> ty pepsi
+Mar 23 19:50:50 <DDRP> We did
+Mar 23 19:50:55 <pepsi> i dont know dave
+Mar 23 19:50:56 <DDRP> it's been passed hasn't it Mr. Chairman?
+Mar 23 19:51:06 <pepsi> h00ts prop was passed
+Mar 23 19:51:14 <smat> okay good
+Mar 23 19:51:30 * DDRP bookmarks
+Mar 23 19:51:39 * smat bookmarks also
+Mar 23 19:51:39 <pepsi> yes its passed dave
+Mar 23 19:51:47 <pepsi> =)
+Mar 23 19:51:47 <pepsi> Speech from the Superiour Mystic Controller...
+Mar 23 19:51:50 <h00t`> <chant>speech....speech....speech</chant>
+Mar 23 19:51:59 <pepsi> if haesu is ready
+Mar 23 19:52:12 <smat> he was brb'ing
+Mar 23 19:52:19 <DDRP> I propose we delay it by 15 minutes precisely
+Mar 23 19:52:23 <DDRP> time for a cup of tea
+Mar 23 19:52:29 <smat> due to "some critical thing that just happened"
+Mar 23 19:52:40 <smat> works for me david, nice idea
+Mar 23 19:53:08 <blahdy-bleh> i am back
+Mar 23 19:53:16 <smat> wb blahdy
+Mar 23 19:53:20 <blahdy-bleh> thank you
+Mar 23 19:53:24 <pepsi> dave i propose we delay it till the next item after he returns
+Mar 23 19:53:25 <smat> we're about to take a tea break
+Mar 23 19:53:33 <blahdy-bleh> okay
+Mar 23 19:53:38 <pepsi> ready to give your speech haesu?
+Mar 23 19:53:41 <DDRP> Let's have the tea break anyway
+Mar 23 19:54:01 <smat> let's break till 15:05
+Mar 23 19:54:05 <DDRP> back at 8 mins past the hour
+Mar 23 19:54:08 <pepsi> 20 min?
+Mar 23 19:54:15 * pepsi will go take a quick shower =)
+Mar 23 19:54:19 <DDRP> ack
+Mar 23 19:54:31 <smat> ack?
+Mar 23 19:54:36 <blahdy-bleh> syn
+Mar 23 19:54:39 <DDRP> OK 15:12
+Mar 23 19:54:42 <DDRP> and that's final
+Mar 23 19:54:42 <DDRP> brb
+Mar 23 19:54:44 * smat looks nervous
+Mar 23 19:54:50 <smat> okay David, i'm there
+Mar 23 19:54:58 <pepsi> ok Dave
+Mar 23 19:54:58 <pepsi> 13 min =)
+Mar 23 19:55:00 <smat> <<<<<< RECESS >>>>>>
+Mar 23 19:55:08 --- DDRP sets modes [#overchat +m]
+Mar 23 19:57:23 --- h00t` is now known as h00t
+Mar 23 20:10:31 <DDRP> =)
+Mar 23 20:10:45 <DDRP> 2 mins 2 mins, put those tea cups away
+Mar 23 20:11:47 --- pepsi sets modes [#overchat -m]
+Mar 23 20:11:58 <-- SBeast has quit (Ping timeout: 180 seconds)
+Mar 23 20:12:03 <blahdy-bleh> Let the meeting resume.
+Mar 23 20:12:16 <DDRP> Good luck with your speech
+Mar 23 20:12:22 <pepsi> time for ya speech Haesu
+Mar 23 20:12:27 <blahdy-bleh> ok
+Mar 23 20:12:52 <blahdy-bleh> As many of you know, TowardEX has partnered with Daybologic in order to provide backend/network and connectivty support for OverChat
+Mar 23 20:13:26 <blahdy-bleh> TowardEX will be making sure following things are in highest state of mind during the Overchat operations:
+Mar 23 20:13:26 <blahdy-bleh> 1) Security of the servers
+Mar 23 20:13:31 <blahdy-bleh> 2) Redundancy
+Mar 23 20:13:31 <blahdy-bleh> 3) Backup
+Mar 23 20:13:57 <blahdy-bleh> any questions so far?
+Mar 23 20:13:57 <blahdy-bleh> lol
+Mar 23 20:14:07 <h00t> ;)
+Mar 23 20:14:13 <pepsi> no sir
+Mar 23 20:14:23 <pepsi> continue
+Mar 23 20:14:28 <blahdy-bleh> The security of the servers will be enforced by putting overchat servers on a seperate network when OC rolls out.
+Mar 23 20:14:34 <blahdy-bleh> The overchat servers will eventually get its own layer3 switch on the network
+Mar 23 20:14:42 <blahdy-bleh> with access list filters in place
+Mar 23 20:14:47 <blahdy-bleh> to ensure tigher security.,
+Mar 23 20:15:10 <blahdy-bleh> In addition, ICMP-port-unreachables and certain icmp+udp packets destined to overchat servers will be filtered out from upstream backbone to ensure security aginst DoS
+Mar 23 20:15:54 <DDRP> This is good news considering certain elements =/ I name no names
+Mar 23 20:15:55 <pepsi> good idea against DoS
+Mar 23 20:15:59 <blahdy-bleh> So that is for security.
+Mar 23 20:16:14 <blahdy-bleh> In addition,
+Mar 23 20:16:24 <pepsi> Dave, we all know
+Mar 23 20:16:30 <blahdy-bleh> the Cisco router has already been configured to drop any ping floods or syn floods that are greator than 8Kbps from single IP.
+Mar 23 20:17:16 <blahdy-bleh> And there is a simple announcement btw.
+Mar 23 20:17:27 <blahdy-bleh> Later I do believe we will have more contributors and coding developers for OC
+Mar 23 20:17:32 <blahdy-bleh> in the near future
+Mar 23 20:17:48 <blahdy-bleh> i do believe we will eventually maintain a secure/private cvs servers for all the contributors to organize the codes
+Mar 23 20:17:53 <blahdy-bleh> may be not cvs, but other mechanisms
+Mar 23 20:18:18 <blahdy-bleh> for such purpose, there is what's called IP-Propagation.net, an international private VPN backbone developped by Towardex and few other partners
+Mar 23 20:18:32 <blahdy-bleh> its specifically designed for private research such as this OC development.
+Mar 23 20:18:42 <blahdy-bleh> any transfers over the ip-propagation network remains secure.
+Mar 23 20:18:58 <blahdy-bleh> so we can certainly make use out of that later if we have a need to bring all developers together into single network.
+Mar 23 20:19:27 <blahdy-bleh> lol this room has turned quiet :P
+Mar 23 20:19:29 * DDRP is on that network =)
+Mar 23 20:19:46 <blahdy-bleh> yes
+Mar 23 20:19:48 <blahdy-bleh> so far
+Mar 23 20:19:55 * pepsi is reading
+Mar 23 20:20:00 <blahdy-bleh> IP-propagation.net network stretches from Texas, US and all the way into UK
+Mar 23 20:20:17 <blahdy-bleh> the nations that are involved in ip-propagation network are:
+Mar 23 20:20:28 <blahdy-bleh> err
+Mar 23 20:20:33 <blahdy-bleh> oh there
+Mar 23 20:20:33 <blahdy-bleh> lol
+Mar 23 20:20:38 <blahdy-bleh> US, Canada, UK and FR
+Mar 23 20:21:15 <blahdy-bleh> so as you can see, there are works being doen to help developers get together and get their research works done.
+Mar 23 20:21:23 <blahdy-bleh> but the stuff that i wanted to mention today is this:
+Mar 23 20:21:28 <blahdy-bleh> backup procedures for OC databases.
+Mar 23 20:21:33 <pepsi> very good work
+Mar 23 20:21:46 <blahdy-bleh> also, IP-propagation.net is being linked with Internet2 ;)
+Mar 23 20:21:52 <blahdy-bleh> www.internet2.edu
+Mar 23 20:22:13 <pepsi> i2 == 1337
+Mar 23 20:23:31 <blahdy-bleh> now how do we do the backup for OC database is in question.
+Mar 23 20:23:59 <pepsi> too technical for me =/
+Mar 23 20:24:00 <DDRP> It would be good if the system emailed it to me daily
+Mar 23 20:24:16 <blahdy-bleh> we could do that
+Mar 23 20:24:23 <blahdy-bleh> but in order to make it secure
+Mar 23 20:24:30 <blahdy-bleh> ddrp must operate a mail server in his network/LAN
+Mar 23 20:24:35 <blahdy-bleh> and email will traverse over ip-propagation.net
+Mar 23 20:24:46 <blahdy-bleh> so that it cannot be intercepted in transit.
+Mar 23 20:25:05 <DDRP> Either that... or gpg could encrypt it to my public key
+Mar 23 20:25:15 <blahdy-bleh> yea
+Mar 23 20:25:31 <blahdy-bleh> i think what we can do is
+Mar 23 20:25:39 <blahdy-bleh> insetad of email
+Mar 23 20:25:45 <blahdy-bleh> the overchat server will run a cvsup daemon
+Mar 23 20:25:52 <blahdy-bleh> and then your network will cvsup rsync it down each night or so
+Mar 23 20:25:57 <blahdy-bleh> or may be once a week
+Mar 23 20:26:10 <blahdy-bleh> of course cvsup access is restricted only to ddrp's network.
+Mar 23 20:26:38 <DDRP> Can cvsup deal with binary file differences?
+Mar 23 20:26:53 <blahdy-bleh> cvsup is simply file transfer mechanism
+Mar 23 20:26:58 <blahdy-bleh> but yes
+Mar 23 20:27:05 <blahdy-bleh> basically what happens is
+Mar 23 20:27:10 <blahdy-bleh> the server tars up the db each night
+Mar 23 20:27:24 <blahdy-bleh> then ur system running cvsup will find differences between the one server has an dthe one you have
+Mar 23 20:27:28 <blahdy-bleh> and if difference is found, it will replace+update
+Mar 23 20:27:33 <blahdy-bleh> if not, it will not
+Mar 23 20:28:05 <DDRP> OK
+Mar 23 20:28:19 <DDRP> will it work both ways, so if I modify source your copy of the server will be modifed?
+Mar 23 20:28:27 <blahdy-bleh> so i do believe cvsup over ipp backbone is the way to go for now.
+Mar 23 20:28:42 <blahdy-bleh> you must run a cvsup server on your end
+Mar 23 20:28:47 <DDRP> Oh
+Mar 23 20:28:48 <blahdy-bleh> i think what we can do is this
+Mar 23 20:28:59 <blahdy-bleh> the server can run an nfs server over the ipp vpn
+Mar 23 20:29:08 <blahdy-bleh> and you can nfs mount the overchat directory
+Mar 23 20:29:16 <blahdy-bleh> and modify the db if you want
+Mar 23 20:29:34 <blahdy-bleh> of course it will be sort of slow over modem, but once you have cable, it will not be slow.
+Mar 23 20:30:04 <DDRP> OK but this is complex stuff isn't it? What are the short term solutions for database backup incase we lose it this week for example?
+Mar 23 20:30:28 <blahdy-bleh> cvsup is the best/short/simplest backup mechanism
+Mar 23 20:30:32 <blahdy-bleh> in fact we use it all the time to backup towardex customer files and dns data
+Mar 23 20:30:50 <blahdy-bleh> b/c cvsup can be done directly from commandline
+Mar 23 20:30:55 <blahdy-bleh> so backup scripts can work easily
+Mar 23 20:31:06 <DDRP> OK well I'll tell you what...
+Mar 23 20:31:20 <DDRP> we could have syncronisation going between silverman and the stable server
+Mar 23 20:31:33 <DDRP> therefore avoiding the authoritive source on torvalds
+Mar 23 20:31:42 <blahdy-bleh> yes
+Mar 23 20:31:42 <DDRP> which might become unstable as it's being changed all the time
+Mar 23 20:31:53 <blahdy-bleh> well torvalds can run cvsup client
+Mar 23 20:31:58 <blahdy-bleh> to cvsup down the db file from the official server
+Mar 23 20:32:52 <DDRP> Anyroad
+Mar 23 20:32:56 <DDRP> what is next on the agneda?
+Mar 23 20:33:02 <blahdy-bleh> hehe
+Mar 23 20:33:26 <pepsi> Does the clearence level need to be so broad (users from 2-255)
+Mar 23 20:33:35 <pepsi> 0-255
+Mar 23 20:34:06 <DDRP> Side note: If people don't understand what the levels are, telnet to the query server and type cll
+Mar 23 20:35:30 --> SBeast (~Dagsylad@the.pub.net) has joined #overchat
+Mar 23 20:35:39 <SBeast> =)
+Mar 23 20:35:55 <pepsi> cant we change it to be 0-100?
+Mar 23 20:36:10 <pepsi> or is there a need for it to be 0-255?
+Mar 23 20:36:33 <DDRP> What's wrong with foresight? Almost all of the levels aren't used
+Mar 23 20:37:18 <pepsi> i was only wonderin if there is a specific reason why its so broad?
+Mar 23 20:37:28 <DDRP> It's the length of a byte
+Mar 23 20:37:29 <pepsi> seems to me it would be easier if it was on a smaller scale
+Mar 23 20:37:31 <DDRP> 0-255
+Mar 23 20:38:09 <pepsi> i dont see that the comittee cares about it so i guess it stays at 0-255
+Mar 23 20:38:18 <DDRP> It also leave gaps between different classes of users
+Mar 23 20:38:28 <blahdy-bleh> 255 seems fine to me.
+Mar 23 20:38:30 <DDRP> So there is room for expansion between officers and programmers
+Mar 23 20:38:33 <DDRP> and programmers and g0ds
+Mar 23 20:38:35 <pepsi> and we have already discussed network back up proceduers?
+Mar 23 20:38:43 <SBeast> if it works, why fsck with it !? =P
+Mar 23 20:38:48 <blahdy-bleh> yes we have.
+Mar 23 20:39:23 <DDRP> Yeah changing the user levels creates work with no obvious gain
+Mar 23 20:39:29 <pepsi> is there anything else that the committee feels we need to discuss this week?
+Mar 23 20:39:32 <DDRP> It's OK if you're coding it maties ;)
+Mar 23 20:40:22 <DDRP> What's next on the agenda?
+Mar 23 20:40:49 <pepsi> New matters arising
+Mar 23 20:40:54 <DDRP> Oh
+Mar 23 20:40:59 <pepsi> is there anything else that the committee feels we need to discuss this week?
+Mar 23 20:41:11 <DDRP> Yes
+Mar 23 20:41:17 <DDRP> What about threading
+Mar 23 20:41:28 <DDRP> I'm ****** off with the packet munger
+Mar 23 20:41:32 <DDRP> aka packet compiler
+Mar 23 20:41:33 <pepsi> then propose it mate
+Mar 23 20:41:38 <smat> may i just mention something?
+Mar 23 20:41:43 <smat> after you
+Mar 23 20:41:54 <pepsi> enlighten us
+Mar 23 20:41:59 <smat> minor thing
+Mar 23 20:42:04 <pepsi> smatt mind waiting till dave is done?
+Mar 23 20:42:11 <smat> absolutely not
+Mar 23 20:42:24 * smat bows to the supreme commander
+Mar 23 20:42:31 <pepsi> id like to stay on one subj at a time =)
+Mar 23 20:42:37 <pepsi> and not have 2 convos goin
+Mar 23 20:42:37 <DDRP> OK well, I propose that we might want to switch the server into socket blocking mode and enable a thread per user
+Mar 23 20:42:50 <DDRP> eliminating TX/RX/packet compiler buffering
+Mar 23 20:42:54 <smat> np whatsoever
+Mar 23 20:42:55 <pepsi> how does hcc feel about this
+Mar 23 20:43:29 <pepsi> dave if you feel it neccersary ill 2nd it
+Mar 23 20:43:39 <DDRP> It would be experimental
+Mar 23 20:43:45 <pepsi> i dont have any input on the sub
+Mar 23 20:44:10 <h00t> I don't have any _knowledge_ of the subject. =\
+Mar 23 20:44:10 <DDRP> Haesu needs to comment he's the only other person who knows anything about it
+Mar 23 20:45:47 <blahdy-bleh> ah
+Mar 23 20:46:14 <blahdy-bleh> where are we again, sorry i temporarily got lost
+Mar 23 20:46:31 <DDRP> Any other issues - Thread per user/blocking sockets
+Mar 23 20:46:44 <h00t> <DDRP> OK well, I propose that we might want to switch the server into socket blocking mode and enable a thread per user
+Mar 23 20:47:03 <blahdy-bleh> to me, i dont really see much issues right now except for that tx/rx packet compiler stuff
+Mar 23 20:47:25 <DDRP> It's difficult to test that crap
+Mar 23 20:47:27 <DDRP> unfortunately
+Mar 23 20:47:40 <blahdy-bleh> yes i do know that.
+Mar 23 20:47:55 <blahdy-bleh> i could provide you the shell on the server
+Mar 23 20:47:57 <DDRP> My dad's off down the pub tonight but I'm going to skip that and try to sort this issue once and for all >=o
+Mar 23 20:48:01 <blahdy-bleh> so that you could debug better that way?
+Mar 23 20:48:10 <DDRP> That would be great!
+Mar 23 20:48:30 * h00t goes with John to the pub.
+Mar 23 20:48:36 <blahdy-bleh> yea that would work
+Mar 23 20:49:08 <DDRP> Does your setup leave core dumps?
+Mar 23 20:49:52 <blahdy-bleh> i have no clude.
+Mar 23 20:49:55 <blahdy-bleh> clue*
+Mar 23 20:49:59 <DDRP> No matter
+Mar 23 20:50:00 <blahdy-bleh> sometimes it seems to do that sometimes no
+Mar 23 20:50:04 <blahdy-bleh> is that part of linux kernel compilation option?
+Mar 23 20:50:08 <DDRP> I don't know
+Mar 23 20:50:14 <DDRP> my system wasn't and now it is
+Mar 23 20:50:25 <blahdy-bleh> well ill try to figure that out on linux kernel compile next time
+Mar 23 20:50:43 <smat> i'm sorry i got a little distracted, is the meeting still underway?
+Mar 23 20:50:50 <blahdy-bleh> yes but near closing i believe
+Mar 23 20:50:54 <smat> okay
+Mar 23 20:51:30 <smat> i'll just email the group with what i wanted to say, no need to take the committee's time up with it
+Mar 23 20:51:52 <h00t> =\
+Mar 23 20:51:53 <DDRP> That would be a violation of the committee
+Mar 23 20:52:02 <pepsi> smat youcan say it
+Mar 23 20:52:03 <DDRP> The committee must be given the chance to argue over it
+Mar 23 20:52:07 <blahdy-bleh> you could say it now :-/
+Mar 23 20:52:31 <smat> oh it was just something to do with tshirts for those who have been waiting, no biggie
+Mar 23 20:52:35 <pepsi> only one item left smatty say it plz =D
+Mar 23 20:52:43 <smat> coz i dont have an ink jet printer i have to rely on someone else
+Mar 23 20:52:48 <smat> and that's what's hold them up
+Mar 23 20:53:01 <smat> ty all
+Mar 23 20:53:13 <pepsi> now was that so hard =)
+Mar 23 20:53:18 <blahdy-bleh> ah i see.
+Mar 23 20:53:23 * smat looks sheepish
+Mar 23 20:53:38 <pepsi> next agenda item....
+Mar 23 20:53:43 <pepsi> When shall the next meeting be?
+Mar 23 20:53:43 <smat> blah, you need to email me with your addy too, so i can send you one
+Mar 23 20:53:49 <smat> pepsi, i like these monthly meetings
+Mar 23 20:53:54 <blahdy-bleh> yea ill do that soon
+Mar 23 20:53:56 <blahdy-bleh> thanks
+Mar 23 20:53:57 <DDRP> OK. I shall make the log part of the tree and post an address the the list. I'll post the Superious Mystic Controller's speech to the group seperately as it is most important
+Mar 23 20:54:01 <smat> yw
+Mar 23 20:54:11 <pepsi> smat: propose a date
+Mar 23 20:54:17 <pepsi> if you do not mind
+Mar 23 20:54:22 <blahdy-bleh> DDRP: it was?
+Mar 23 20:54:22 <blahdy-bleh> hehe
+Mar 23 20:54:22 * blahdy-bleh didnt realize
+Mar 23 20:54:26 <smat> one sec, pepsi, i'd be honoured
+Mar 23 20:54:30 <DDRP> Of course
+Mar 23 20:54:44 <blahdy-bleh> kewl
+Mar 23 20:55:43 <smat> as you're spiritual adviser, i suggest april 20
+Mar 23 20:56:03 <smat> since it could be cosmically disruptive to have it on the 27th since that's a full moon
+Mar 23 20:56:10 <h00t> =)
+Mar 23 20:56:15 <DDRP> lmao
+Mar 23 20:56:18 <smat> any dissentions?
+Mar 23 20:56:31 <pepsi> im not a god smatt =)
+Mar 23 20:56:33 <DDRP> It's OK with me
+Mar 23 20:56:36 <smat> >=| David
+Mar 23 20:56:38 <pepsi> but j00 can advise me
+Mar 23 20:56:43 <smat> ty David
+Mar 23 20:56:43 <smat> lol
+Mar 23 20:57:01 <smat> hey, that's why i'm here pepsi, not as a god, but as an intermediatry (sp?)
+Mar 23 20:57:03 <DDRP> smat is the personal advisor to the g0ds
+Mar 23 20:57:14 <DDRP> That means blah, tk, DDRP etc
+Mar 23 20:57:15 <smat> yea
+Mar 23 20:57:19 <h00t> close enough.
+Mar 23 20:57:19 <smat> hehe
+Mar 23 20:57:31 <smat> may we schedule it for around the same time as today?
+Mar 23 20:57:36 <pepsi> i 2nd it smat
+Mar 23 20:57:36 <smat> ty peps
+Mar 23 20:57:48 <smat> and we can rely on someone for a reminder?
+Mar 23 20:57:53 <pepsi> sure smat
+Mar 23 20:57:53 <pepsi> fine with me
+Mar 23 20:57:56 <DDRP> It be pepsi's job
+Mar 23 20:58:01 <smat> awesome, ty
+Mar 23 20:58:08 <pepsi> ill send out the email as soon as agenda is prepared
+Mar 23 20:58:13 <blahdy-bleh> today is good time
+Mar 23 20:58:18 <smat> great!
+Mar 23 20:58:18 <h00t> h00t!
+Mar 23 20:58:23 <smat> may i propose one more last thing?
+Mar 23 20:58:26 <blahdy-bleh> 2pm est always works for me
+Mar 23 20:58:26 <smat> it's very quick
+Mar 23 20:58:31 <blahdy-bleh> yes go for it
+Mar 23 20:58:37 <pepsi> if anyone has an idea or object to be discussed email it to firstname.lastname@example.org
+Mar 23 20:58:42 <smat> i would like to commend pepsi on his job as chair
+Mar 23 20:58:50 <DDRP> erik: That address has fscked me over twice
+Mar 23 20:58:51 <h00t> 2nd.
+Mar 23 20:58:56 <DDRP> I'll stick to your hotmail account
+Mar 23 20:58:56 <h00t> ;)
+Mar 23 20:59:00 <smat> and for bringing this meeting to order
+Mar 23 20:59:05 <pepsi> thank you smatty
+Mar 23 20:59:05 <smat> ty h00t
+Mar 23 20:59:10 <blahdy-bleh> DDRP: when did you send emails?
+Mar 23 20:59:10 <smat> ty pepsi
+Mar 23 20:59:15 <pepsi> =D
+Mar 23 20:59:18 <DDRP> I can't remember
+Mar 23 20:59:20 <smat> =D
+Mar 23 20:59:23 <blahdy-bleh> we've had some mail server troubles lately.
+Mar 23 20:59:23 <DDRP> I'll send a test now and get back to you
+Mar 23 20:59:38 <smat> so 4/20/02 2pm est (referring to h00t's clock site)
+Mar 23 20:59:43 <blahdy-bleh> k
+Mar 23 20:59:48 <pepsi> yes blah i noticed
+Mar 23 20:59:53 <pepsi> =/
+Mar 23 21:00:09 <DDRP> You mean 20/4/2002
+Mar 23 21:00:11 <DDRP> ;)
+Mar 23 21:00:13 <pepsi> h00t: next meeting is on 4/20
+Mar 23 21:00:13 <pepsi> heh
+Mar 23 21:00:13 <pepsi> =D
+Mar 23 21:00:23 * pepsi wishes ian could make a meeting
+Mar 23 21:00:32 <h00t> ::chuckle::
+Mar 23 21:00:35 <DDRP> So do I
+Mar 23 21:00:50 <h00t> 3rd.
+Mar 23 21:01:02 <smat> 4th
+Mar 23 21:01:17 <DDRP> Can we have a fither?
+Mar 23 21:01:35 <h00t> �.0
+Mar 23 21:01:40 <pepsi> i porpose meeting be ajourned (sp?)
+Mar 23 21:01:46 <DDRP> Seconded
+Mar 23 21:01:56 <blahdy-bleh> Seconded.
+Mar 23 21:02:03 <DDRP> Set mode +m to get rid of these people?
+Mar 23 21:02:05 <DDRP> ;)
+Mar 23 21:02:06 <blahdy-bleh> OC2 Meeting closed.
+Mar 23 21:02:09 <pepsi> g'day all
+Mar 23 21:02:11 * smat applauds, great meeting, thank you committee members
+Mar 23 21:02:17 <pepsi> =)
+Mar 23 21:02:17 <blahdy-bleh> good day all :)
+Mar 23 21:02:22 <h00t> adjourned, btw. ;)
+Mar 23 21:02:22 <blahdy-bleh> it had been great meeting
+Mar 23 21:02:26 --- DDRP sets modes [#overchat +m]
+Mar 23 21:02:31 <-- smat has quit (BitchX-75p1 -- just do it.)
+Mar 23 21:02:36 <-- blahdy-bleh (email@example.com) has left #overchat
+Mar 23 21:02:36 <-- h00t (~Jean@rdu26-241-023.nc.rr.com) has left #overchat
+Mar 23 21:02:41 --- pepsi has changed the topic to: OverChat Meeting 3 will be held on 4/20/02 @ 1 pm US central time...
+Mar 23 21:03:01 <-- DDRP has kicked SBeast from #overchat (Meeting closed)
+Mar 23 21:03:08 <-- DDRP has kicked pepsi from #overchat (Meeting closed)
+Mar 23 21:03:16 --- You have been kicked from #overchat by DDRP (Meeting closed)
+**** ENDING LOGGING AT Sat Mar 23 21:03:16 2002