{% extends "_layout.html" %} {% block title %}I2P Development Meeting 7{% endblock %} {% block content %}

I2P (invisiblenet) Development Meeting 7

Courtesy of the wayback machine.

--- Log opened Wed Jul 03 00:33:19 2002

00:33 <+logger> logging started

00:47 -!- mode/#iip-dev [+o nop] by mids

00:54 < UnDeRToW> hi

00:54 <@mids> hi

01:01 <@nop> ok

01:01 <@nop> hi

01:01 <@nop> welcome

01:01 <@nop> to the 5th meeting I believe

01:01 <@mids> 7th

01:02 <@nop> really

01:02 <@nop> ok

01:02 <@mids> http://mids.student.utwente.nl/~mids/iip/

01:02 <@nop> wilde you have anonymail

01:02 <@nop> ok

01:03 <@nop> iip 1.1 rc2 will be released pending a few doc changes and me submitting a couple of technical docs for merging with docs

01:03 <@nop> umm, cs and I will work on transforming inform to work with latest version

01:04 <@nop> and we have had a few people try out some security checks on IIP

01:04 <@nop> unfortunately with no success

01:04 <@nop> but

01:04 <@nop> that's the spirit

01:04 <@nop> ;)

01:04 <@nop> anyway

01:05 <@nop> this is not much of a meeting today, but if anyone has anything to add please feel free at the questions part

01:05 <@nop> so... mids, do you have anything

01:05 <@mids> yes

01:05 <@mids> I would like to have a public discussion about the pro's and con's of bots in the public channels

01:06 <@mids> with ArdVark and some others I have had an argument about that

01:06 <@mids> everybody has its personal ideas

01:06 <@mids> and they aren't all compatible

01:06 <@mids> but since we are not here to censor everything

01:06 <@mids> lets discuss

01:06 <@mids> allow me to state the current issue

01:07 <@mids> unless someone already wants to add something

01:07 <@mids> 3 2 1 0

01:07 <@mids> ok

01:07 <@mids> in #anonymous (and #iip and #help) we have had a few infobots

01:07 <@mids> Herod, camabot and now visix

01:08 <@mids> personally I dont see any good in those things.. since they seem to be only 'abused' for channel flooding

01:08 <@mids> but I understand that my vision on that is biased

01:08 <@mids> based on years of IRC trauma's :)

01:09 < Kyl3> yes but there are some bots that are useful

01:09 <@mids> Where are those bots good for?

01:09 <@mids> .

01:09 < ArdVark> what is defined as channel flooding?

01:09 < UnDeRToW> for what?

01:10 < Kyl3> there are some bots that are used for channel protection

01:11 <@mids> like?

01:11 <@mids> ArdVark: good one... anybody?

01:11 < Kyl3> like my eggdrop on DALnet

01:11 < UnDeRToW> but here is not necesary channel protection

01:11 <@mids> I would say: filling the communication channel with data

01:11 < Kyl3> all custom flood protection

01:11 < UnDeRToW> at least now

01:12 <@mids> Kyl3: true, but with Trent, I don't think that is a real issue here

01:12 < ArdVark> excuse me but please define filling the communication channel with data

01:12 <@mids> re flooding: but I agree that it is very personal what is seen as flood

01:12 <@mids> Kyl3: what is flood in your wording?

01:12 <@mids> communcation channel is irc channel / query window / message window

01:13 <@mids> data = ascii characters on itc

01:13 < Kyl3> so Trent has channel protections built into it?

01:13 <@mids> and filling is putting too much into it

01:13 <@mids> Kyl3: no, not like you mean...

01:13 < ArdVark> no I have seen users place huge paragraphs of words in a channel without any negative response; perhaps a friend of an OP

01:14 < UnDeRToW> I think the best way to control that is some @ on public channels that only go up when a problem appear

01:14 <@mids> ArdVark: big pastes (what is big) is flood to imho

01:14 <@mids> and jesus stating all the bible chapters is too... imho again

01:15 < ArdVark> however mids you have offered no negative responses to some individuals; friends of your perhaps?

01:15 < ArdVark> who paste large paragraphs

01:15 <@mids> maybe friends

01:15 <@mids> maybe I was away

01:15 <@nop> tell you what

01:15 <@nop> the best way

01:15 <@nop> to determine this

01:15 <@nop> is to let ircd determine it

01:15 <@nop> ircd has a flood limit

01:15 <@nop> and if they exceed that

01:15 <@nop> it will kick them

01:16 <@nop> other than that, if you're not intentionally doing it

01:16 <@nop> then what's the problem

01:16 <@mids> still, you can flood very easilly

01:16 <@nop> yes

01:16 <@nop> but intentional is obvious

01:16 <@nop> so if it's intentional

01:16 <@nop> we handle it

01:16 <@nop> if it's not

01:16 <@nop> then go on about our business

01:16 < ArdVark> no too easy to decide someone is intentionally flooding nop

01:16 <@nop> no need for unnecessary drama

01:16 <@nop> but

01:16 <@nop> it's easy to ask people to talk to the bot in a private channel

01:17 <@nop> and if they are belligerent

01:17 <@nop> then most likely you have probable cause of their intentions

01:17 < ArdVark> I disagree

01:17 <@nop> ok

01:17 <@nop> ardvark

01:17 <@nop> please define then

01:17 <@nop> because if we can set boundaries

01:18 <@nop> this argument will be quickly over

01:18 < ArdVark> I have no problem with your ircd flood control notion; I have a big problem with an OP doing the "protecting"

01:19 < ArdVark> OP's may have friends that they permit to "flood"; while others are dealt with differently

01:19 <@nop> yes

01:19 <@mids> I think that your problem is having OPs...

01:19 <@nop> the biased issue

01:19 < CyberLOK1> sorry just saw msg I have been at work

01:19 < CyberLOK1> did I miss meeting?

01:19 < ArdVark> yes my ultimate concern is OP's because of the potential to limit speech mids

01:19 <@mids> CyberLOK1: talking about flooding right now

01:19 <@mids> CyberLOK1: logs: http://mids.student.utwente.nl/~mids/iip/

01:19 < CyberLOK1> mids thanks

01:20 <@mids> ArdVark: I totally agree on the theoretical side of that

01:20 <@nop> well what about an agent

01:20 < ArdVark> I will continually express my dissent about that issue

01:20 <@mids> but on the practical side... without ops, how to deal with problem users that deny others to speak? (by flooding)

01:22 < ArdVark> OP's are a threat to free speech, end of statement; deciding on flooding by OP's is not objective

01:22 <@mids> then please tell me how you see #anonymous without OPs.. using current available technology

01:23 <@mids> everything is fine...

01:23 <@nop> agent to set a standard

01:23 <@mids> then 10 trouble guys enter

01:23 <@nop> for flooding

01:23 <@mids> and start spamming crap

01:23 <@mids> what is your solution ArdVark ?

01:24 < ArdVark> spam is an emotionally laden term used to point out speech other's, perhaps most others do not like; free speech is not just about speech I like

01:24 <@mids> so these 10 guys paste #####'s with the maximum rate that the ircd allows

01:25 <@mids> resulting in nobdy beeing able to see any text

01:25 < UnDeRToW> but an oper can go up when a problem occur

01:25 < UnDeRToW> and the rest of the time down

01:25 < ArdVark> and the point is that these guys are going to remain forever?

01:25 <@mids> UnDeRToW: that is how it is now

01:26 < UnDeRToW> i know

01:26 < UnDeRToW> and if someone do a bad thing

01:26 < UnDeRToW> or an oper do bad thing

01:26 <@mids> ArdVark: why not.. they have a botnet with 100 t3 connections

01:26 < UnDeRToW> talk and he/she know his error

01:26 < UnDeRToW> and if persist

01:26 < UnDeRToW> no more @

01:27 < ArdVark> well I sense a real threat to free speech concern surrounding this issue

01:27 < UnDeRToW> but at least now any problem related with that, isnt it?

01:28 <@mids> okay, I have a proposal

01:28 <@mids> maybe we should try a period without any operators in #anonymous

01:29 <@mids> few weeks

01:29 <@mids> and see how it goes

01:29 <@mids> fix topic to something static

01:29 <@mids> channel mode +tn

01:29 <@mids> and everybody removed from the trent access list

01:29 <@nop> you know

01:29 <@nop> this is really not fair

01:29 <@nop> people are missing the point

01:30 <@nop> IRC has a ruleset, and channel control and all this other shit

01:30 <@nop> I understand the nature of freedom of speech

01:30 <@nop> but we also have to have some sort of defense

01:30 <@nop> flooding can cause problems on networks

01:30 <@nop> etc

01:30 < wilde> but what's the problem really? anyone is free to open a new channel and get ops? So why is ops a bad thing in #anonymous? Open a new channel and speak freely

01:30 <@nop> you can't say that's speech, really, it's 1's and 0's being abused

01:30 < ArdVark> I disagree nop

01:30 <@nop> the founders of specific channels, they have a choice to control the channel

01:31 <@nop> if they want the #freespeech channel

01:31 <@nop> then so be it

01:31 <@nop> because then

01:31 <@nop> you can flood it

01:31 <@nop> all you want

01:31 <@nop> and call it #freespeech

01:31 <@nop> the technology provides the freedom

01:31 <@nop> but the channel holders might not

01:31 <@nop> and this is the design

01:31 <@nop> you have choices

01:31 < ArdVark> I must express my complete dissent officially

01:31 <@nop> and all the choices range

01:31 <@nop> and that's the freedom of choice

01:32 <@nop> is that if you say I disagree, I can't say, no you must agree

01:32 <@nop> but in a founder's channel

01:32 <@nop> I can say

01:32 <@nop> we take this as flooding

01:32 <@nop> we're not an op on every channel

01:32 <@nop> and if there is concern

01:32 <@nop> then there is concern

01:32 <@nop> but #anonymous is public

01:32 <@nop> which requires some governing of very basic rules

01:32 <@nop> because everyone must have a chance to speak

01:32 <@nop> but flooding, interpreted or not

01:33 <@nop> is not going to be tolerated

01:33 < ArdVark> well again I dissent

01:33 <@nop> that just wouldn't make sense

01:33 <@nop> it's like saying

01:33 <@nop> I have the freedom to kill 10 people

01:33 < UnDeRToW> but nop, and all people without op and if someone start flooding just go up and fix the prob

01:33 < UnDeRToW> and then go down

01:33 <@nop> yes

01:33 <@nop> that's fair

01:33 <@nop> but

01:33 <@nop> the interpretation

01:33 <@nop> is the challenge

01:33 <@mids> UnDeRToW: thats what we all minus ardvark are saying...

01:33 < ArdVark> because I was accused of causing flooding when someone else pasted large paragraphs into channel previously was not admonished

01:34 < CyberLOK1> are we tring to justify flooding?

01:34 <@nop> I agree with Ardvark's view in the sense that he may be executing his free speach

01:34 <@nop> speech

01:34 <@nop> but the interpretation seems to be biased

01:34 <@nop> and to solve that

01:34 <@nop> we need to have a standard

01:34 < UnDeRToW> mids i know

01:34 <@nop> but we can't just allow flooding

01:34 < ArdVark> OP's are inconsistent in their approach; let friends do stuff and others not

01:35 < CyberLOK1> how about a control on the number of people and a throttle of max sends per second

01:35 < CyberLOK1> this way it would be impossible to flood people for to long and it would really do nothing

01:35 <@nop> hmm

01:36 <@nop> it's not really an issue that much

01:36 <@nop> and we might be a little sensitve

01:36 < CyberLOK1> ArdVark remove the human part then

01:36 <@nop> because we're used to public irc

01:36 <@nop> and the biased ness is an issue

01:37 <@nop> I say

01:37 <@nop> that unless it's seriously obvious script kiddie flooding

01:37 <@nop> then we just leave it be

01:37 <@nop> and at the most

01:37 <@nop> we can ask questions or ask politely if they will talk to the bot in a private channel

01:37 < ArdVark> problem with flooding is what if no one is talking in channel? suddenly I just type a lot; since no one else is talking I am not infringing on anyone else's speech

01:37 <@nop> no you're not

01:37 <@nop> and you should be allowed

01:37 < ArdVark> well that was the issue the other day

01:38 <@mids> aprogas asked you to stop

01:38 <@mids> but you didnt see it

01:38 <@mids> because of the bot output I think...

01:38 <@nop> well

01:38 <@nop> I think if aprogas asks to stop

01:38 <@nop> he should do it privately

01:38 <@nop> then he should see it

01:38 <@nop> unless he's running certain irc clients

01:38 <@mids> depends

01:38 <@nop> but that's another issue

01:38 <@mids> lot of people dont check private messages

01:38 < ArdVark> he cann do it privately, but I sense I need not stop because of his/her request

01:39 < ArdVark> if no one else is talking

01:39 <@mids> he was talking

01:39 < CyberLOK1> mids ignorance is not an excuss

01:39 < CyberLOK1> sorry spelling

01:39 <@mids> now you dont want to stop

01:39 <@mids> how much talking is needed for you to stop?

01:39 < ArdVark> once again we have Aprogas a friend of an OP being supported by that OP

01:39 < ArdVark> therein lies the problem

01:40 <@mids> I understand your point

01:40 < ArdVark> a threat to me who is no friend to the OP's and my speech

01:40 <@mids> but I dont see a solution, except that you create your own channel with your rules

01:41 < ArdVark> well why tell me to create one, why not tell your frend instead?

01:41 <@mids> we created #anonymous

01:41 < CyberLOK1> um how about 1 bot in each created channel that is oped.. then when a script kiddie flood is detected it protects the channel

01:41 < ArdVark> see how it goes back to problem with OP's and their friends

01:41 < CyberLOK1> then there is no more issue... no one is opped only 1 person and its not even a person so no one can claim biad

01:41 < CyberLOK1> bias

01:42 <@nop> but the programmer writes the biasedness

01:42 < ArdVark> right

01:42 < CyberLOK1> nop basic rules

01:42 < CyberLOK1> if channel == lines per sec

01:42 < CyberLOK1> if this many people are comming and going

01:42 <@nop> hmm, mids can trent do this

01:42 < CyberLOK1> then

01:42 < CyberLOK1> lock channel kick out people flooding above this much

01:42 < CyberLOK1> timeout at predefined

01:43 <@mids> nop: technically yes, but I dont want trent to snoop on all channels

01:43 <@nop> good point

01:43 <@nop> what about just for #anonymous

01:43 < CyberLOK1> well it would eliminate this "bias"

01:43 <@nop> which is "THE" pub channel

01:43 < CyberLOK1> I mean

01:43 < CyberLOK1> lets face a fact here

01:44 < CyberLOK1> you take risk running to the street shouting your words

01:44 < CyberLOK1> here you risk maybe we all are out to get you and record what you say

01:45 < CyberLOK1> risk is all of life and if they can not deal with "snooping" (which its not but hey) then tell um to get out thier banners and head to the street

01:45 <@nop> no

01:45 <@nop> no snooping

01:45 <@nop> we don't want snooping

01:45 <@nop> the argument is not of this

01:45 < CyberLOK1> nop anyone and anything can snoop

01:45 <@nop> it's that #anonymous is a pub channel

01:46 <@nop> what I'm saying is

01:46 <@nop> we're not going to abuse the power of trent

01:46 <@nop> and become the gov't

01:46 < CyberLOK1> ahhh

01:46 < CyberLOK1> kk well

01:46 <@nop> that's hardly called for

01:46 < CyberLOK1> we can form "public" channel groups

01:46 < CyberLOK1> this consists of channels formed by people

01:46 < CyberLOK1> who dont want ops anymore but want thier channel protected

01:47 < CyberLOK1> and there for it would be a self election

01:47 < CyberLOK1> an "option"

01:47 < CyberLOK1> this way no one choice is taken away

01:47 < CyberLOK1> and you could use trent to protect the anonymous channel as an example

01:47 <@nop> just trent for #anonymous because #anonymous is founded as the Public channel on IIP

01:47 < CyberLOK1> others can leave it to op wars and other such nonsense

01:47 <@nop> the rest is not trent's duty

01:48 <@nop> look

01:48 < CyberLOK1> nop I was thinking

01:48 < CyberLOK1> I want to form a channel

01:48 < CyberLOK1> but I myself dont want to deal with ops and yada

01:48 < CyberLOK1> I want just like you guys freedom of speech

01:48 <@nop> ardvark I understand your concern, it makes complete sense, but without a solution or idea from you, I need to know what can be done

01:48 < CyberLOK1> unless I would be allowed to run a bot in my channel

01:48 <@nop> do you have a proposal

01:48 <@nop> and/or can you offer one by the next meeting

01:49 < ArdVark> well if you are using trent to "control" #anonymous, can you please always place in the topic or have an intro for each user?

01:49 < ArdVark> to let them know of this

01:49 <@nop> I don't think we will do this

01:49 <@nop> but if we could have a proposal from you

01:49 <@nop> by next meeting

01:49 <@nop> on what ideas you think would be acceptable

01:50 <@nop> then that can be accepted and we can work it out so that it make everyone happy

01:50 <@nop> we are just trying to protect the network as well

01:50 <@nop> and that's the stance I'm coming from

01:50 <@nop> so that everyone can use it efficiently

01:50 < CyberLOK1> foofd time

01:50 <@nop> and I want to respect the freedom of speech as well

01:50 < ArdVark> nop I believe that must be worked out over time, I cannot promise in some business-like fashion a solution for next time

01:50 < CyberLOK1> here here nop

01:50 <@mids> okay, thanks for dropping by CyberLOK1

01:50 <@nop> ok

01:51 <@nop> that's fair

01:51 < CyberLOK1> np mids

01:51 <@nop> but let's just work it out

01:51 <@nop> then

01:51 <@nop> the hard fact is

01:51 <@nop> we're humans

01:51 <@nop> and a community

01:51 <@nop> so it' s a challenge to not want to control

01:52 <@nop> but I need a pseudo-utopia idea, but someone has to defend the utopia as well

01:52 < ArdVark> no too many people are used to irc OP's where if you dissent with them you are kicked

01:52 <@nop> ok

01:52 < ArdVark> so if I dissent with an OP kicking someone

01:52 <@nop> I understand the complain

01:52 <@nop> complaint

01:52 <@nop> and I believe that this can be a problem

01:52 <@nop> and that no one is perfect

01:52 <@nop> so what we can do is set up a standard

01:52 <@nop> I think that mids idea

01:52 <@nop> of no ops

01:52 <@nop> in #anonymous

01:52 <@nop> for a while

01:52 <@nop> might be a workable solution

01:52 < ArdVark> actually nop most people will not complain, they will just leave and not return

01:53 <@nop> ok

01:53 <@nop> well

01:53 <@nop> no ops for 2 weeks

01:53 <@nop> in #anonymous

01:53 <@mids> I still propose no ops for 2 weeks

01:53 <@nop> and the only, and strictly only time

01:53 <@nop> is if there is without a doubt a malicious attack on #anonymous

01:53 <@nop> by a script kiddie

01:53 <@mids> no

01:53 <@mids> no ops is no ops

01:53 <@nop> ok

01:53 <@mids> then you have to do it right

01:53 <@nop> fair enough

01:54 <@nop> no ops

01:54 <@nop> two weeks

01:54 <@nop> in #anonymous

01:54 <@nop> agreed?

01:54 < UnDeRToW> not agree with no ops

01:54 <@nop> all say I

01:54 <@nop> we can vote can't we

01:54 < UnDeRToW> one op only for big problems

01:54 <@nop> that can't be done

01:54 <@nop> it would still have biased

01:54 <@nop> it's just 2 weeks

01:54 <@nop> worse case scenario we deal with it

01:54 <@nop> and measure it out

01:55 <@nop> and say

01:55 <@nop> is it worth it

01:55 <@nop> in 2 weeks

01:55 <@nop> ardvark

01:55 <@mids> it would be an experiment, maybe with very interesting results

01:55 <@nop> will that satisfy you for this temporarily till we can look at better options

01:55 < ArdVark> OK

01:55 <@nop> ok

01:55 <@nop> done

01:55 < ArdVark> thanks

01:55 <@mids> great

01:56 <@mids> now what topic do we use?

01:56 <@nop> the one that's up there

01:56 <@nop> ;)

01:56 <@mids> ok, do you remove everyone from the access list?

01:58 <@nop> can you please mids

01:58 <@nop> for two weeks

02:00 < ArdVark> however I really do not think we have resolved the issue of what is flooding; and the implications therein

02:00 < ArdVark> if you want to talk about what the network can handle

02:00 < ArdVark> cause I understand programs have limitations

02:01 <@mids> (#anonymous accesslist is clear)

02:01 < ArdVark> but have you ever been in #anonymous when the conversation is fast a furious

02:01 < ArdVark> some people words pass by without being readable for me

02:01 <@mids> yes, then I think that the normal typing exceeds the ircd floodrate :)

02:02 < ArdVark> how is that different from so called spam or flooding?

02:02 < AgentDelta> a hypothetical question, i hope i'm not out of line... if there was some kind of strong authentication system to authenticate to a known anonymous user with a micropayment account attached so users pay for breaking specified behavior, would that address flooding concerns? how difficult would it be to integrate such an api into the system?

02:02 <@mids> AgentDelta: like hashcash for instance?

02:02 <@mids> AgentDelta: not.. spam is also personal judged

02:03 < wilde> Freedom of speech isn't equal to forcing people to listen, #anonymous is general place for chat, but if you want more freedom you should start your channel and discuss what you want and with as many sentences as you like per second

02:03 <@mids> s/agentdelta/ardvark/

02:03 < ArdVark> I agree mids, spam is personal

02:04 <@mids> AgentDelta: and so it flood... even the flood that the ircd denies... some human picked the values for it

02:04 < Neo> wilde: yeah, then you OP your own rules in your own channel.

02:04 < ArdVark> look, I have no problem with people having their own channels with their own rules; so be it

02:04 < ArdVark> #anonymous was started as I remember for anonymous free speech

02:05 < AgentDelta> if the channels aren't owned, i guess you have the tragedy of the commons

02:05 < ArdVark> commons is not a tragedy

02:06 < AgentDelta> no, commons isn't a tragedy, but it doesn't have a specific owner who looks out for it

02:06 < AgentDelta> and litter and other artifacts of this absence of an owner is called the tragedy

02:07 < Neo> the commons can become a tragedy, and that is why we are talking about how to deal with people who flood the system and could turn #anonymous into nothing but a flood zone.

02:07 < AgentDelta> ok

02:07 < ArdVark> you mean like someone to be "accountable" AgentDelta? Using the economic view of life

02:08 < AgentDelta> no, "accountable" implies accountability to some outside power. if i own this piece of land, i'm going to keep it in good shape for my own selfish reasons

02:08 < Neo> AgentDelta: no, accountable could mean accountable to internal users of the system.

02:09 < Neo> We were thinking about forum mentors for DC forums.

02:09 < Neo> They are not all powerfull channel dictators,

02:09 < Neo> but if they censor people, they will be held accountable to the users of the system.

02:09 < AgentDelta> explain

02:09 < Neo> So if mids is the op of #anonymous and he abuses op power, then he can get removed of his status,

02:10 < Neo> and he also suffers reputation damage.

02:10 < Neo> So someone that is impartial controls true FLOODING and real abuse of the system by users.

02:10 < AgentDelta> ok, so you have some stated standard of under what strict circumstances someone could be silenced, and if someone uses op powers demonstrably outside of the listed guidelines, he loses op status?

02:10 < wilde> Actually I think this discussion is really not a big thing, everyone is free to start their own moderated/unmoderated channels, if this is a battle of the #anonymous channel I think most users agree that this general chat channel is best without flooding or promotion of child porn for example, so some minimal control is needed

02:11 < ArdVark> I disagree wilde

02:12 <@mids> AgentDelta: yes, but now the channel founders are free to choose their standards

02:12 < AgentDelta> absent some mechanism to establish order, the most powerful takes control over any place, physical or virtual, and i submit in an irc channel, flooders and spammers are the most powerful.

02:13 < AgentDelta> the sheer volume of noise can overwhelm any logical argument

02:13 < AgentDelta> hehe

02:13 <@mids> AgentDelta: but what is noise? :)

02:13 < ArdVark> noise has it's value too

02:13 < AgentDelta> that's true,

02:14 < AgentDelta> you could have a channel with so much noise in it that you can insert stenographic data that is'nt obvious

02:14 < wilde> ArdVark: You say you disagree, but on what?

02:15 < ArdVark> wilde I will just stand on that statement for now, sorry

02:15 < AgentDelta> an anonymous channel with a constant stream of noise seems to serve an entirely different purpose from an anonymous channel with expectation of real-time communication to/from other minds

02:15 < Neo> The issue right now is not about noise.

02:15 < AgentDelta> maybe it needs a separate channel for anonymous communication for a general purpose, and anonymous communication for conversation

02:15 < Neo> It is about abuse of the #anonymous channel from users flooding the system.

02:15 < wilde> ArdVark: you're arguments are brilliant

02:16 < wilde> s/you're/your

02:16 <@mids> Neo: and (potential) abuse of operator power

02:16 <@mids> anyway, I am going to sleep.. thanks for dropping by. The channel logs are and will be available on http://mids.student.utwente.nl/~mids/iip/

02:20 < ArdVark> is the meeting over? guess so

02:21 < Neo> yeah, got quiet in here.

02:21 < ArdVark> nice discussion all, see you in #anonymous

02:22 < UnDeRToW> time to sleep

02:22 < UnDeRToW> bye everybody

02:22 < Neo> l8r

02:22 < UnDeRToW> nop

02:22 < UnDeRToW> i will start with the translation of new docs soon

02:22 < UnDeRToW> see you

02:22 < UnDeRToW> bye

10:12 -!- UserX_ is now known as UserX

--- Log closed Wed Jul 03 10:29:14 2002

{% endblock %}