XSF Discussion - 2019-08-20

lumi has left 00:04:37
pdurbin has left 00:09:02
Chobbes has joined 00:13:12
aj has joined 00:24:34
adityaborikar has joined 00:53:55
Daniel has left 00:54:00
Daniel has joined 01:02:00
jmpman has left 01:08:06
aj has left 01:13:00
Daniel has left 01:32:00
jmpman has joined 01:34:59
Daniel has joined 01:35:40
Chobbes has left 01:37:36
UsL has left 01:39:34
pdurbin has joined 01:55:35
neshtaxmpp has left 02:01:17
neshtaxmpp has joined 02:01:18
Daniel has left 02:02:23
Daniel has joined 02:05:41
pdurbin has left 02:07:48
Lance has left 02:10:59
curen has joined 02:14:34
Yagiza has joined 02:16:28
UsL has joined 02:17:21
Daniel has left 02:21:46
Daniel has joined 02:25:49
Lance has joined 02:29:09
jmpman has left 02:33:50
waqas has left 03:08:30
Lance has left 03:12:58
Lance has joined 03:34:49
waqas has joined 03:37:35
jmpman has joined 03:39:10
pdurbin has joined 03:55:36
Daniel has left 03:55:46
Daniel has joined 04:03:55
Tobias has joined 04:16:02
pdurbin has left 04:17:11
Lance has left 04:18:37
jmpman has left 04:23:13
curen has left 04:24:24
jmpman has joined 04:29:47
Daniel has left 04:30:32
Daniel has joined 04:35:57
Daniel has left 04:41:30
Lance has joined 04:41:58
waqas has left 04:58:41
aj has joined 05:05:26
ralphm has left 05:06:21
ralphm has joined 05:06:25
wurstsalat has joined 05:23:37
Lance has left 05:25:52
Daniel has joined 05:36:37
jmpman has left 05:42:08
jcbrand has joined 05:42:23
Lance has joined 05:43:27
pdurbin has joined 05:55:36
pdurbin has left 06:05:06
jubalh has joined 06:08:27
remko has joined 06:26:53
Lance has left 06:27:08
Steve Kille has left 06:33:04
Nekit has joined 06:39:43
lskdjf has joined 06:47:12
moparisthebest has left 06:50:27
moparisthebest has joined 06:50:53
Steve Kille has joined 06:51:20
Lance has joined 06:52:21
sezuan has joined 06:56:54
Alex has left 06:57:20
pdurbin has joined 06:57:33
COM8 has joined 07:00:42
pdurbin has left 07:05:22
COM8 has left 07:08:23
COM8 has joined 07:10:16
jmpman has joined 07:10:34
COM8 has left 07:11:59
karoshi has joined 07:19:43
Kev 07:27:17
pep.: he's still doing stuff, as he's always been.
ralphm 07:28:26
What I mean he doesn't frequent this room, which I thought was what pep. was asking.
pep. 07:29:28
yeah
Lance has left 07:36:15
eevvoor has joined 07:42:42
larma has left 07:46:44
eevvoor 07:46:47
flow why not XMPP for activists? which alternative is there?
aj has left 07:46:48
eevvoor 07:47:04
Of course I would use XMPP if I would like to protect myself.
larma has joined 07:47:09
eevvoor 07:47:45
By the why, activists already use(d) mail :D. Snowden did, and DeltaChat popped up for activist usecase. ^^
jonas’ 07:49:49
all the metadata
goffi has joined 07:54:41
jmpman has left 07:58:44
Ge0rG 07:58:48
It's too hard to use properly if your life depends on it
pep. 07:59:40
That's because "we know". I'm sure others "who know" in other protocols would have other concerns about their solutions :x
Lance has joined 08:01:17
ralphm 08:01:57
Indeed, other protocols have other issues
Allo has left 08:08:41
Allo has joined 08:10:28
eevvoor 08:25:38
until now I cannot see a better protocol than XMPP. Thus I would use it despite my concerns.
eevvoor 08:25:50
There exists no perfect solution until now.
eevvoor 08:26:05
~~Anyhow, you can always use your life if your an activist.~~ ✎
eevvoor 08:26:13
Anyhow, you can always loose your life if your an activist. ✏
lskdjf has left 08:26:30
eevvoor 08:26:45
The enemy comes from all directions. I was always surprised when they appeared.
eevvoor 08:26:46
:D
eevvoor has left 08:28:44
lskdjf has joined 08:28:47
Daniel has left 08:36:18
Daniel has joined 08:36:46
Mikaela has joined 08:38:18
ralphm 08:43:51
I do think that you'd want full control over your server.
Allo has left 08:44:13
Lance has left 08:45:03
Allo has joined 08:45:45
pdurbin has joined 08:57:30
mr.fister has left 08:59:03
Visitor has joined 09:06:05
Lance has joined 09:07:52
Nekit has left 09:12:21
Visitor has left 09:15:49
Nekit has joined 09:18:15
pdurbin has left 09:18:56
Lance has left 09:51:13
lskdjf has left 09:54:17
lskdjf has joined 09:55:14
adityaborikar has left 09:58:10
adityaborikar has joined 10:00:59
Lance has joined 10:13:28
andrey.g has left 10:33:43
andrey.g has joined 10:38:50
Tobias has left 10:48:04
intosi has left 10:48:05
ralphm has left 10:48:05
Tobias has joined 10:48:07
Lance has left 10:57:19
ralphm has joined 10:58:24
intosi has joined 11:00:55
pdurbin has joined 11:12:29
Lance has joined 11:16:46
LNJ has joined 11:18:46
Alex has joined 11:42:01
Lance has left 12:00:11
Lance has joined 12:22:30
Ge0rG 12:26:53
https://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2017-August/033123.html is a 401?!
pep. 12:27:27
Fun
pdurbin has left 12:28:24
ralphm 12:29:25
intosi, Kev, MattJ?
Chobbes has joined 12:37:41
Dele (Mobile) has joined 12:48:00
Dele (Mobile) has left 12:50:40
eevvoor has joined 12:52:24
Kev 12:52:58
That'll probably be because of the OS upgrade at a guess.
Lance has left 13:06:27
Kev 13:07:14
I believe a strict reading of 612[01] would lead to a server rejecting a stanza of <message from='...' to='...'><body un-namespaced-attribute="blah>...</body></message> because of the attribute. I'm currently looking at a patch to M-Link to enforce this. Anyone see issues with enforcing that?
Guus 13:07:18
https://opensource.wearespindle.com/ seems interesting
jonas’ 13:11:40
Kev, I’m not so sure servers restricting the content of stanzas being routed is a good thing
COM8 has joined 13:12:00
Kev 13:12:12
It is what 6120 says though - that no entity should be sending out syntactically invalid stanzas.
flow 13:12:15
Kev, a pointer to the relevant parts of the RFCs would be good idea…
ralphm 13:12:41
Kev: do you mean unknown namespace prefixes, or unknown attributes without one?
Kev 13:12:42
And I suspect you would expect the server to be e.g. bouncing other types of invalid syntax - like message type="nope", for example.
Kev 13:12:55
ralphm: Unknown attributes without one.
jonas’ 13:13:14
Kev, content vs. headers
ralphm 13:13:15
I don't see how that's a syntax violation.
flow 13:13:24
well message type="nope" is valid IIRC
jonas’ 13:13:28
that, too
flow 13:13:38
although I would not recommend it
Zash 13:13:39
Huh
Kev 13:13:40
flow: no, 6121 enumerates the allowed types.
Kev 13:13:50
~~(And 'nope' isn't one of them~~ ✎
jonas’ 13:13:52
~~Kev, and entities which see an unknown type must (or SHOULD?) treat it as normal~~ ✎
Kev 13:13:53
(And 'nope' isn't one of them) ✏
jonas’ 13:13:55
Kev, and entities which see an unknown type must (or SHOULD?) treat it as "normal" ✏
Kev 13:14:00
jonas’: No, that's not right.
Kev 13:14:26
An entity that chooses not to implement support for all the defined types should treat any of the defined types that it doesn't have explicit support for as the default.
Zash 13:14:27
Server rejecting `<message><body foo="bar">blah</body></message>` seems totally fine to me.
Kev 13:14:36
Not that it should accept ones with an invalid type.
jonas’ 13:14:45
Kev, right, I misread that
ralphm 13:15:03
type='nope' is *not* invalid for Core?
Kev 13:15:16
ralphm: 6120 references 6121 for its rules.
ralphm 13:15:29
for IM purposes, yes
flow 13:16:01
I always read If an application receives a message with no 'type' attribute or the application does not understand the value of the 'type' attribute provided, it MUST consider the message to be of type "normal" (i.e., "normal" is the default). as "nope" become "normal"
jonas’ 13:16:14
flow, above the enumeration, there is "type MUST have one of those values"
Kev 13:16:25
flow: You should read the stuff a paragraph or so before as well, which explains it further.
ralphm 13:16:26
6120 without 6121 is a valid use case. Even XEP-0060 doesn't inherently depend on 6121
jonas’ 13:16:57
Kev, I’m inclined to say, aside from @to and @from, the server should leave routed stanzas alone.
flow 13:17:28
Well it says something about "if included" the type MUST be one of the following ;)
jonas’ 13:17:37
flow, yes
jonas’ 13:17:50
so it’s either one of the defined ones, or absent. absent defaults to normal.
Kev 13:17:50
ralphm: That's a good point, thanks.
ralphm 13:17:57
however, 6120 does have a schema with a restricted list of values
flow 13:18:05
I think the RFC could be better writen/more clear about that, but I am happy to hear that there appears to be a common ground that "type" sould not carry custom values
jonas’ 13:18:07
(non-normative schema?)
jonas’ 13:18:20
flow, MUST NOT ;)
Kev 13:19:53
jonas’: Incidentally (I'd previously missed this) it's OPTIONAL whether a server does the validation.
ralphm 13:20:10
But type on stanza aside, the earlier example is about unknown attributes on the body element. I think that's totally valid. If servers would block that, it might be a problem for forward compatibility.
flow 13:20:40
Kev, I still miss the part in the RFC which forbids additional custom unqualified attributes in <body/>
Kev 13:21:26
ralphm: What about the other cases, like an iq that has three payloads? I had previously believed that a server should be not allowing those through, but as of about 3 minutes ago I no longer think that.
flow 13:21:38
(FWIW, I would be happy if such a part exists)
COM8 has left 13:21:54
Kev 13:22:56
flow: "There are no attributes defined for the <body/> element, with the exception of the 'xml:lang' attribute." is the text in question. I think reading that to say that there are no further attributes allowed in the default namespace would be reasonable. But I was sufficiently unsure as to bring it up here :)
ralphm 13:23:22
I don't know, think that 8.2.3 ad 5 is pretty convincingly a MUST.
ralphm 13:24:08
and to me 'not defined' does definitely not mean 'not allowed'
ralphm 13:24:35
Otherwise the whole idea of ignore what you don't know about, goes out the window.
ralphm 13:25:15
And rejecting unknown stanza type values is arguably of a different order than unknown attributes.
Kev 13:25:16
Well, we've always assumed that 'what you don't know about' will be namespaced.
Lance has joined 13:25:30
Kev 13:25:49
But this is all getting a lot muddier than I'd thought it would when I added a ticket for validating syntax.
ralphm 13:25:52
Kev: I haven't and there are many specs where new attributes, all not namespaced, were added.
jonas’ 13:26:05
which?
ralphm 13:26:30
pubsub is one
Kev 13:26:31
I couldn't immediately think of any when I was trying earlier, but thought someone else might be able to, thus asking heer.
Kev 13:26:44
What does pubsub add?
ralphm 13:27:13
I mean new attributes compared to earlier versions of the spec
ralphm 13:27:54
e.g. the publisher attribute
Kev 13:27:56
Ah. That's somewhat different.
ralphm 13:28:01
why?
Kev 13:28:15
They're not adding attributes to RFC-defined elements.
ralphm 13:28:42
So what if we at some point have a cis and add an attribute to body?
ralphm 13:29:07
We'd have a mess of older servers that just won't route?
Daniel has left 13:29:40
Kev 13:29:43
I think the argument against blocking the attributes is strong.
ralphm 13:29:59
I missed the argument?
Kev 13:30:11
You just made one aspect of it :)
Daniel has joined 13:30:12
Kev 13:30:21
But we'd also have to not to anything in cis that was illegal in bis, unless we negotiated cis.
Kev 13:30:32
Because validation is allowed under bis.
ralphm 13:31:20
So where is the part that says you can't have other attributes?
Kev 13:33:31
There isn't one. There is one that say they're not defined, and another that says you're allowed to validate.
ralphm 13:33:41
The text you quoted doesn't convince me and is not in Core.
Kev 13:33:46
So it's a little wooly.
Kev 13:34:22
It's not, but it's referenced from core saying "the rules for this are in -im", or somesuch.
Kev 13:34:33
I'm sold on not blocking the attributes, though.
ralphm 13:35:51
wooly indeed
ralphm 13:36:06
I was kinda curious about the threat model, though.
larma has left 13:39:09
larma has joined 13:39:12
Kev 13:39:31
So, different question.
Nekit has left 13:39:35
Kev 13:39:51
Given than 6120 clearly says that servers are allowed to validate syntax, what /would/ be fair game for validation.
Kev 13:41:01
It seems to be saying you're allowed to validate explicitly against the 6120 schema.
ralphm 13:41:17
Well, at the very least defined attributes and their values, and indeed things like number of child elements in iq
madhur.garg has left 13:41:45
jcbrand has left 13:41:47
jonas’ 13:42:40
Kev, @to, @from (including stringprep!), @type on all stanzas, presence of @id on IQs(?), number of children in IQs, structure of the <error/> child if present
ralphm 13:43:05
I think the schema in 6120 is reasonable to check against
jcbrand has joined 13:43:05
Dele (Mobile) has joined 13:43:06
Kev 13:43:07
Oh, this gets messy. If I'm reading it right, the schema is more restrictive than the text, but is normative.
madhur.garg has joined 13:43:10
ralphm 13:43:23
how is the schema more restrictive?
Kev 13:43:45
Ah, no, this is stream errors, not stanza errors, ignore.
jonas’ 13:44:35
if the schema is normative: absence of any unspecified jabber:client/jabber:server namespaced children
jonas’ 13:44:47
that would show those folks who think they can just drop their XML in there
Kev 13:44:57
Ah, interesting, so message types are defined in the 6120 schema. Making them restricted even for non-IM.
ralphm 13:45:02
jonas’: I think the schema language had no way to express this
jonas’ 13:45:24
ralphm, I’m pretty sure that anything which isn’t allowed explicitly in the schema is forbidden?
Kev 13:45:48
Including undefined attributes? :)
ralphm 13:45:54
jonas’: why?
Dele (Mobile) has left 13:45:58
jonas’ 13:46:09
that’s how XML schema works?
ralphm 13:46:47
Kev: on the type values and schema, I mentioned that earlier
Nekit has joined 13:48:10
Kev 13:48:23
Sorry Ralph, I can't quite parse what you're saying there. Are you saying you /do/ think that the schema in 6120 restricts undefined attributes on defined elements, and therefore e.g. rejecting ...<body blah='eee'>... is 'ok'?
ralphm 13:49:29
No. I think that checking what's in the schema is fair game, but I don't think we should disallow what's not mentioned
ralphm 13:49:48
Is that more clear?
Kev 13:50:06
That's clear, ta. But isn't that not how schemas work?
Kev 13:50:21
Unless the schema defines an extension point (which it does all over the place for namespaced child elements), you're not allowed to extend it.
ralphm 13:50:27
Hence not normative, IMO
Kev 13:50:35
It's explicitly normative for 6120, though.
ralphm 13:50:41
Hmm
Kev 13:50:44
Because it says that you're allowed to validate against it and reject what doesn't match.
ralphm 13:51:27
Then I was wrong.
adityaborikar has left 13:51:52
ralphm 13:51:53
And I'm unsure if you can add even namespaced attributes to body
Kev 13:52:00
Indeed, I think you can't.
adityaborikar has joined 13:52:11
Kev 13:52:19
Which I was /not/ expecting.
Kev 13:52:35
There's also a question of what 6120 says you can do, and what is sensible to do.
ralphm 13:52:44
Right. But on the other hand a much simpler processing model
ralphm 13:53:26
Personally, I'd hate seeing new attributes of any kind on elements defined in these schemas
Kev 13:53:44
I also think the schema is more restrictive than the text, on allowable stanza errors. IIRC (haven't double checked, but read it earlier) you're allowed your own stanza error elements, but in the schema you have to choose one of the 6120 defined ones.
ralphm 13:53:47
But up till now thought it might be ok
Kev 13:54:05
At least if I'm reading the schema correctly (not my speciality
Kev 13:54:07
). ✎
Kev 13:54:11
). ✏
Nekit has left 13:54:49
ralphm 13:54:58
Ooh, that needs an erratum
Nekit has joined 13:55:05
Kev 13:55:13
I also haven't checked the errata. Maybe I should.
ralphm 13:55:28
Application specific conditions should definitely be allowed.
Kev 13:55:45
Yeah. But a server is allowed to drop stanzas that contain them :D
ralphm 13:58:26
I'm not sure if <sequence/> disallows other namespaced elements
Daniel has left 13:59:43
Chobbes has left 14:01:27
Chobbes has joined 14:01:28
Maranda has joined 14:01:55
Daniel has joined 14:02:03
Dele (Mobile) has joined 14:02:11
jmpman has joined 14:02:55
ralphm 14:03:48
But I think we should have this explicit.
Maranda 14:04:16
https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline/#/discussion/1250600/xmpp-sunset 😭 wiki to rectify soon
ralphm 14:04:50
It doesn't say they don't use XMPP going forward, does it?
adityaborikar has left 14:05:13
adityaborikar has joined 14:05:15
ralphm 14:05:17
Just that they have issues with their c2s causing spam etc.
Maranda 14:05:28
They're dropping
Maranda 14:05:50
Support on sept. 19th
ralphm 14:06:21
Yeah I read it
jcbrand has left 14:06:23
ralphm 14:06:55
I agree just running XMPP internally isn't so interesting
Ge0rG 14:09:19
Spam is killing xmpp everywhere. Sigh..
ralphm 14:09:25
Lot of negative, insightful, responses
Nekit has left 14:09:52
jcbrand has joined 14:10:53
Nekit has joined 14:11:03
ralphm 14:11:08
“This is a feature that enhances many peoples' gameplay, a feature that larger fleets and chat channels are absolutely dependent on, and terminating it demonstrates that Cryptic is shockingly out of touch with the way the players who spend money on their game play it. Don't remove XMPP. Take it out of beta and monetize it instead. Charge $10 or $25 for access if you have to.”
Ge0rG 14:11:13
> So that excuse doesn't make sense. Indeed, that looks like an excuse.
adityaborikar has left 14:11:21
ralphm 14:13:26
By the way it is for all arcgames properties
Maranda 14:13:48
Yes
ralphm 14:13:51
Ge0rG: if Google can use that excuse, anyone can
Ge0rG 14:14:13
ralphm: it didn't make sense back when Google used it.
ralphm 14:14:24
My point
adityaborikar has joined 14:14:49
Maranda 14:14:52
~~They chat system platform is shared across all games originally from Cryptic afair~~ ✎
Maranda 14:15:14
Their chat system platform is shared across all games originally from Cryptic afair ✏
Maranda 14:15:16
Yes
Maranda 14:16:52
> Don't remove XMPP. Take it out of beta and monetize it instead. Charge $10 or $25 for access if you have to.” It's a beta that lasts from 10 years
Seve 14:17:11
Not tested enough? :D
Seve 14:17:18
That's sad though :(
Maranda 14:17:32
Perfect World never expanded or finalised it when they took Cryptic Studios assets
Maranda 14:17:57
Seve: indeed
Daniel has left 14:20:45
adityaborikar has left 14:20:50
adityaborikar has joined 14:21:09
Daniel has joined 14:22:18
pdurbin has joined 14:22:36
Chobbes has left 14:23:00
pdurbin has left 14:29:15
aj has joined 14:38:10
jmpman has left 14:45:30
Daniel has left 14:47:32
Dele (Mobile) has left 14:48:02
Daniel has joined 14:48:19
Dele (Mobile) has joined 14:49:06
curen has joined 14:49:22
COM8 has joined 14:56:47
j.r has joined 14:58:22
COM8 has left 14:58:26
Chobbes has joined 14:58:54
Lance has left 15:14:03
Chobbes has left 15:23:33
Chobbes has joined 15:27:07
Chobbes has left 15:27:37
david has left 15:28:19
jonas’ 15:29:49
Alex, memberbot does not reply to me
Ge0rG 15:30:04
jonas’: can you ping it?
jonas’ 15:30:07
oh dear
Chobbes has joined 15:30:23
jonas’ 15:30:27
now it does
jonas’ 15:30:29
it also appears to have restarted
Ge0rG 15:31:05
jonas’: it will restart your "session" if you send presence unavailable or somesuch
sezuan has left 15:31:10
arc has left 15:33:15
arc has joined 15:33:16
jonas’ 15:34:17
voted \o/
andy has left 15:34:51
Lance has joined 15:36:02
lovetox has joined 15:44:30
Alex 15:44:57
👍
jonas’ 15:50:29
now that bitbucket is sunsetting mercurial, do we need to take action for anything related to xmppoke? or is that fully migrated to github?
Mikaela has left 15:54:33
adityaborikar has left 15:55:59
adityaborikar has joined 15:56:31
Mikaela has joined 15:58:54
COM8 has joined 16:01:28
COM8 has left 16:02:50
Lance has left 16:03:56
COM8 has joined 16:06:29
jmpman has joined 16:06:31
COM8 has left 16:06:32
Chobbes has left 16:10:31
Chobbes has joined 16:10:32
COM8 has joined 16:12:12
COM8 has left 16:12:46
COM8 has joined 16:15:14
andy has joined 16:15:23
COM8 has left 16:16:02
COM8 has joined 16:16:42
COM8 has left 16:19:37
COM8 has joined 16:20:06
COM8 has left 16:20:31
COM8 has joined 16:21:15
Mikaela has left 16:22:13
Mikaela has joined 16:22:29
COM8 has left 16:22:35
pdurbin has joined 16:22:36
Steve Kille has left 16:22:48
COM8 has joined 16:23:28
Steve Kille has joined 16:25:56
Chobbes has left 16:25:59
COM8 has left 16:26:33
lskdjf has left 16:27:13
lskdjf has joined 16:29:25
pdurbin has left 16:32:38
arc has left 16:34:06
arc has joined 16:34:17
COM8 has joined 16:34:29
COM8 has left 16:35:08
COM8 has joined 16:37:09
jmpman has left 16:39:43
COM8 has left 16:41:18
Wojtek has joined 16:43:31
COM8 has joined 16:44:50
COM8 has left 16:45:08
Wojtek has left 16:50:04
patrick has joined 17:04:23
adityaborikar has left 17:10:38
adityaborikar has joined 17:24:23
Nekit has left 17:32:19
Lance has joined 17:43:21
Yagiza has left 17:45:02
Allo has left 17:45:18
Allo has joined 17:47:03
debacle has joined 17:54:37
jubalh has left 17:59:41
jubalh has joined 18:02:48
adityaborikar has left 18:05:49
Dele (Mobile) has left 18:07:28
jcbrand has left 18:11:34
Wojtek has joined 18:13:10
aj has left 18:13:18
Wojtek has left 18:13:43
Dele (Mobile) has joined 18:14:13
Guus 18:21:08
jonas’: I think that is all here now, but I'd love for someone with access to the deployment to verify that. https://github.com/xmpp-observatory
pdurbin has joined 18:22:36
Chobbes has joined 18:25:23
jcbrand has joined 18:26:26
j.r has left 18:26:31
Lance has left 18:26:38
pdurbin has left 18:30:15
j.r has joined 18:32:49
Allo has left 18:37:07
Allo has joined 18:37:50
debacle has left 18:41:10
Nekit has joined 18:47:14
marc_ has joined 18:59:48
mimi89999 has left 19:17:26
mimi89999 has joined 19:19:12
neshtaxmpp has left 19:29:39
neshtaxmpp has joined 19:29:39
mimi89999 has left 19:35:08
mimi89999 has joined 19:35:10
Ge0rG 19:37:20
mail.jabber.org is still Forbidden.
ralphm 19:40:13
Kev said there's been an upgrade, and I think nobody's actually looked into it yet
Ge0rG 19:41:42
So did anything happen on the send-presence vs. fetch-MAM vs. receive-offline-messages vs. delete-all-offline-messages front?
waqas has joined 19:45:38
igoose has left 19:51:02
igoose has joined 19:51:03
stpeter has joined 20:01:10
peter has joined 20:01:24
LNJ has left 20:08:55
j.r has left 20:11:58
j.r has joined 20:19:54
pdurbin has joined 20:22:37
mr.fister has joined 20:24:22
david has joined 20:24:54
remko has left 20:26:57
Tobias has left 20:27:38
pdurbin has left 20:36:45
jcbrand has left 20:38:42
peter has left 20:54:34
Chobbes has left 21:05:23
stpeter has left 21:11:30
jubalh has left 21:17:03
waqas has left 21:31:24
wurstsalat has left 21:33:42
eevvoor has left 22:02:46
pdurbin has joined 22:22:37
goffi has left 22:31:46
pdurbin has left 22:41:01
lovetox has left 22:47:14
karoshi has left 22:52:27
Dele (Mobile) has left 22:57:27
david has left 23:19:42
david has joined 23:19:43
Daniel has left 23:22:33
Daniel has joined 23:26:18
UsL has left 23:32:29
Nekit has left 23:32:31
UsL has joined 23:32:32
larma has left 23:33:13
peter has joined 23:58:15
stpeter has joined 23:58:50