Re: [ogpx] ogpx Digest, Vol 11, Issue 6

Meadhbh Hamrick <meadhbh.siobhan@gmail.com> Thu, 04 March 2010 22:36 UTC

Return-Path: <meadhbh.siobhan@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CE823A8CA3 for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:36:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rtVMmhf1chdf for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:36:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 519A63A743D for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:36:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vws20 with SMTP id 20so1726161vws.31 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:36:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=pxqqIRcpp1VokaAa0bUH0qtdFJf/hF6DXK90P7/WtVc=; b=g7IvjUzN1bxWUOcZfICpkH3chwTGeMfsPLXO5RjPTKXMUGH7KJi9/oDGoWUoZylrjM KezDxOjNdpl3SmQ5XY3LXHqVo0WtVHurxTc2vSsgKS2eYCggMqbXUKuvfuvmzjI/6Zne pJxiUh/1XXusjF3pSw591byyLKIU93YBOipFE=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=u9o6mD8CZ8ZJUaJCRaPSvUgJnUXZsqvJn9tV4eOLmuOMvzSeJCnre+j+KTk+mQTkHq G3rERja1s+UYVGylSr4TYXdoQIBlem8fziwl5eR27ZxweX5EsU1WBvZjBfNtpOcR2I+6 QDraB8cWoJnkLT+yqNNiZmaC+S5OOwqQmT38Y=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.48.22 with SMTP id p22mr18803vcf.93.1267742202099; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:36:42 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4B902967.9000608@stpeter.im>
References: <mailman.155.1267732820.3585.ogpx@ietf.org> <adae2d8e1003041256i33081dbeiceb52b146f832af3@mail.gmail.com> <6c9fcc2a1003041340v2c50d6ap68e576c4b9e356ea@mail.gmail.com> <4B902967.9000608@stpeter.im>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:36:41 -0800
Message-ID: <b8ef0a221003041436v37b7ff8cre5f95ebc26e1ad11@mail.gmail.com>
From: Meadhbh Hamrick <meadhbh.siobhan@gmail.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e64718e89f785a0481013bc6"
Cc: ogpx@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ogpx] ogpx Digest, Vol 11, Issue 6
X-BeenThere: ogpx@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <ogpx.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ogpx>
List-Post: <mailto:ogpx@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:36:46 -0000

why so? some people like IRC and there's a tool that works. why not use it?

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>wrote:

> On 3/4/10 2:40 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> >> If folks would be content with using IRC rather than Jabber I have an
> IRC
> >> <-> SL relay that works fairly well.
> >
> > Jabber is the official IETF IM mechanism.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3921 :)
>
> > It's certainly fine if we
> > can use IRC (or anything else), but we'll get the most connectivity
> > (and acceptance) if we can do our bridging with Jabber.
>
> There are IRC <=> XMPP bridges but SL <=> IRC <=> XMPP might be a bridge
> too far...
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list (VWRAP working group)
> ogpx@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>