On 11 Dec 2019, at 11:11, Yoav Nir wrote:
Hi, Paul
On 11 Dec 2019, at 20:03, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On 11 Dec 2019, at 8:23, Salz, Rich wrote:
We are seeing a flurry of these kind of “post quantum
protection” things.
This is the only one I have seen that is a method, not a new key
y Paterson, said so awhile back.
I don't think that's what he said in the slides you posted, but I've
Cc'd him so he can reply. The slides are about picking new post-quantum
algorithms; what is described in the draft is a method for mixing in
preshared secrets with curren
I'm glad to see this document finally make it towards standardization.
Just a minor editorial note: capitalizing "Quantum Computers" is
incorrect and should be fixed before it goes to the RFC Editor.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mai
er (DNS) program for processing. As with any network input, the
> content should be considered untrusted and handled accordingly.
Yep, that works for me. With that and the other change you said was fine, I
think this is quite ready for IETF Las
define "character", you will also have a problem (some encodings of characters
take up multiple octets).
If you really want to go down this path, you must say something like "domain
names where each label consist only of octets which map to the ASCII encoding
of the following values: A to Z, a to z, 0 to 9, "-", and "_".
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
NS;
see RFC 7719 for definitions of DNS terms. I suggest that this paragraph be
changed to:
The content of INTERNAL_DNS_DOMAIN and INTERNAL_DNSSEC_TA may be
passed to another (DNS) program for processing. Some DNS programs
only handle domain names in
On 23 Aug 2016, at 12:43, Derek Atkins wrote:
Paul,
On Tue, August 23, 2016 3:28 pm, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On 23 Aug 2016, at 12:12, Derek Atkins wrote:
Just to play devil's advocate here, are you implying that we'll see
a
5-10-year lead time on quantum computer development suffi
On 23 Aug 2016, at 12:12, Derek Atkins wrote:
Just to play devil's advocate here, are you implying that we'll see a
5-10-year lead time on quantum computer development sufficiently in
order
to spend those 5-10 years:
1) having this discussion again,
2) revving the documents
3) getting the rev
d be able to increase key sizes well ahead of
widespread use of quantum computers.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
On 9 Aug 2016, at 5:44, Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Tero Kivinen [mailto:kivi...@iki.fi]
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 9:15 AM
To: Paul Hoffman
Cc: Yaron Sheffer; ipsec@ietf.org; Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer)
Subject: Re: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-fluhrer-qr
alues in that column. It seems like there is still
disagreement in the crypto community about how susceptible different
algorithms and modes are to quantum.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
Greetings. I support the adoption of this draft as a WG document. I have
a minor editorial quibble (it should be "split DNS" instead of
"Split-DNS"), and would like a reference to RFC 2775, but those can be
dealt with as the WG discusses the docume
uot;go back to IKEv1" guidance.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
progress as-is". Extra points are given for reviewers who don't wait
until the last minute.
--Paul Hoffman and Dave Waltermire
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
or IoT, but might not be true in few years. Isn't enough to just
> say that currently this algorithm might be used for IoT.
That seems to be the right way to go.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
distant past, and that there
was a tad of interest. That's not enough to get it in the charter.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
This version has many significant changes from the previous draft.
Please review it soon so we don't have a lot of surprises in WG Last
Call.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
On 11 Mar 2016, at 6:07, Daniel Migault wrote:
> I would also be more than happy to present our ongoing work on IKEv2/YANG.
Great! Please so do on the list. :-)
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mail
ero's suggestion was to "allow it this
time", which really begs the question on how we will handle this in
the
future.
That seems to be a reasonable topic for discussion. Could you (or you
and Tero) put together a proposal and do 10 minutes on
; I think we’re ready for WGLC”
Great! I've cut down the time allotment for it then.
Of course, you could say that on the list in a separate thread so that
we'll start the WG Last Call sooner...
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPse
rest, we should talk about it at future meetings or even at a
virtual interim.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/agenda/agenda-95-ipsecme
Comments are welcome.
Of course, this is not an invitation to stop conversation before the
meeting; just the opposite. Please keep the on-list discussion active so
that the meeting can be more useful.
--Dave Waltermire and Paul
Greetings. We had kinda hoped to have this one wrapped up before the
IETF meeting, but that is now seeming less likely. Will the authors have
a revised draft based on the recent comments soon?
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
Greetings. We need to update our charter to reflect our current and
expected work. Dave and I propose the following text. Please let us know
within the next week if you have suggestions for changes.
--Paul Hoffman and Dave Waltermire
The IPsec suite of protocols includes IKEv1 (RFC 2409 and
(hopefully) few developers who care
about QR a decade before anyone thinks there is any possibility of its
use is a reasonable way forward.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
Of interest here for those who followed the trajectory of this draft.
--Paul Hoffman
Forwarded message:
From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
To: ietf-annou...@ietf.org, rfc-d...@rfc-editor.org
Cc: drafts-update-...@iana.org, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
Subject: RFC 7670 on Generic Raw Public-Key
ually make things worse, so we really should be careful about
deciding whether or not to pursue this.
How can we determine if the IoT community (as compared to IPsec
developers) have a need for IKE compression?
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPse
ery basic. What do you think should be added there?
That seems like a premature question. We haven't even decided if the
idea of compressing IKE would give the benefits listed, whether the
computational cost match the space benefits, and thus should be
considered at all.
--Paul Hoffman
GitHub. That is, being able to use GitHub is *not* required for you to
contribute text.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
registration desk at noon!
Change of venue: I have reserved room 513 Thursday from 1200 to 1300 for
this discussion. That should make it easier for people to find each
other.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https
Of interest to the WG
Forwarded message:
From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com,
draft-kivinen-ipsecme-oob-pub...@ietf.org, The IESG ,
rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Generic Raw Public Key Support for IKEv2'
to Proposed Standard (draft-k
ements for
this document are and put them into the document. Without that, we can
endlessly debate about particular choices for "MUST" and even "SHOULD".
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
changes you have seen from the
past few days that you want.
WG: we will make this an active topic of discussion (along with our
other topic, closing out the DDoS document).
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org
Of possible interest to people here.
Responses to this should go to i...@ietf.org, not to the IPsecME WG
mailing list.
Forwarded message:
From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Subject: Last Call: (Cloning
IKE SA in the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)) to
Proposed Standard
D
e IETF Last Call.
--Paul Hoffman
On 18 Sep 2015, at 8:05, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Of interest to people in this WG. If you have comments on the draft,
please send them to i...@ietf.org, not on this list.
--Paul Hoffman
Forwarded message:
From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: l...@ietf.org
S
Sure. Someone volunteer to write up the short draft, and that author
should put Jeff Schiller at the top of the acknowledgements, and send it
to the WG.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
Of interest to people in this WG. If you have comments on the draft,
please send them to i...@ietf.org, not on this list.
--Paul Hoffman
Forwarded message:
From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Cc: l...@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call: (Minimal
IKEv2) to Informational RFC
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015
Greetings again. Dave (our new co-chair) and I talked, and we don't see
any need to meet at the upcoming meeting in Yokohama. Instead, we would
love to see more discussion here about the DDoS document and discussion
of possible new items.
--Paul Ho
team.
I intend to continue being active within the Security Directorate, so
I'll be seeing you, guys and gals.
Thank you Yaron, and thank you David. The change in half the
"leadership" of the WG should not affect our work too much, particularly
at our lower level of work
There is general agreement that this document is a good starting point
for a WG item. Yoav and Simon: please prepare this as a -00 draft,
incorporating any of the relevant suggestions you got during the past
few weeks.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec
Of interest to this WG. This is an individual submission, not a WG item,
so comments should be sent as described in the announcement.
Forwarded message:
From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
Subject: Last Call: (More
Raw Public Keys for IKEv2) to Internet Standard
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:59:
.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
We should ask the NSA authors or their proxies before we do anything.
Heck, maybe some NSA folks might even want to contribute to such an
extension to IKEv2. We are in absolutely no rush, given how long it will
be before serious researchers think there are practical quantum
computers.
--Paul
could either combine the documents or, failing
that, agree on some wording for the WG about what each doc does and why
they should exist in parallel. After that, the WG will be in a better
position to think about whether we want to adopt them as WG items.
--Paul Hoffman
Please accept this erratum and mark it has "Held for document update".
--Paul Hoffman
> On Jun 4, 2015, at 5:08 AM, RFC Errata System
> wrote:
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7296,
> "Internet Key Exch
That seems to be the easiest way around this protocol mis-design.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
ormative References section, but
it is more
appropriate as a normative reference.
I really meant that. Instead of wasting everyone's time with another IETF LC,
please strongly consider changing the DISCUSS to "yes, you need to move that
reference to the I
://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305/ If you
have a Datatracker account (which is free and easy to get), you can even
subscribe to the Atom feed for the document (and any other draft).
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
and IPsec.
Please keep it in mind as you write or revise your documents. Thanks!
--Paul Hoffman
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6982/
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
ore review will help prevent
whoopsies in the future.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
Ev2. Please issue a -04 soon
that has an appendix with one example of use in IKEv2, and another in IPsec.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
applies in
> this special case, the updates text needs to be clearly worded to reflect
> that or you copy in all the text that applies from the other draft.
Sounds fine. Who do you want to make that decision?
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing li
s update ready without holding up the draft.
Unless you want us to make more changes to the draft, you might as well put
this into IETF Last Call now, even though it will miss the next telechat.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
e. If you are an implementer, or just good at crypto, please consider doing
a review now. If you have questions about how to review, feel free to reach out
to me in personal mail.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/ma
r Chacha20-Poly1305.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
item, with an expected time to IETF Last Call
in May.
--Paul Hoffman and Yaron Sheffer
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
...are posted. You can find them at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/92/materials.html
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
The window is open for submitting new drafts. It would be great to have the -05
dealing with Kathleen's requests submitted this week, before the meeting Friday.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/lis
On Feb 26, 2015, at 2:11 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Greetings again. A few people have expressed interest in having
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nir-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305 as a WG item
> for IPsecME. If you want this as a WG document, and you are willing to review
> dr
to the IESG and
will accept whatever the IESG wants for this.
If you object to this outcome, please say so before Monday. Thanks!
--Paul Hoffman
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
>> - Implementations of RFC 4301 that do not care about IKEv2 using this draft
>> should not be updated, so this draft doesn't update 4301, just the 4301
>> processing when using IKEv2 and this draft.
>>
>> I tend toward the second interpretation, but am happy ei
ssing when using IKEv2 and this draft.
I tend toward the second interpretation, but am happy either way. What do
others think?
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
opposed
to this being a WG document, please say so (and say why). Thanks in advance.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
ually live in Dallas...),
please don't assume you can leave the IETF "early".
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
at is published, we'll ask our
AD to move the document to IETF Last Call.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
[[ We really want to hear from everyone who reviewed the draft earlier, and
would love to hear from at least a few new reviewers as well. These reviews are
really a helpful way to participate in the WG! ]]
>
>> On Jan 28, 2015, at 2:22 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>>
>> Gr
e
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5723#section-4.3.2.
I knew the latter part, but I was more concerned about the former. As long as
the verification is no harder than the proposed puzzles, then yes, resumption
seems like a good addition. I wanted to be sure that it wasn't harder
afely allocate CPU resources to a purported session
resumption?
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
[[ We really want to hear from everyone who reviewed the draft earlier, and
would love to hear from at least a few new reviewers as well. These reviews are
really a helpful way to participate in the WG! ]]
> On Jan 28, 2015, at 2:22 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> Greetings again. Plea
or "I have now reviewed the document and here are a few things that still
deserve comment".
If it looks like there is general agreement, we'll close out this
second/continued WG Last Call in two weeks, on February 11.
--Paul Hoffman
_
Some folks here might be interested in this draft, now in IETF Last Call. Do
*not* send comments to the IPsecME mailing list; instead, follow the
instructions in the last call below.
--Paul Hoffman
> The IESG has received a request from the IP Performance Metrics WG (ippm)
> to consid
issues.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
On Jan 9, 2015, at 12:28 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2015, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
>> Greetings again. The chairs apologize for the log delay on this, but it is
>> time to move on this document. This begins the two-week WG Last Call on
>> https://tools.
as well. Please send all comments to the list before Friday, January 23.
Thanks!
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
discussion alive
here is not.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
drafts)
are still welcome on the list as long as they do not disrupt the ongoing WG
work.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
ent. If it is not
adopted, the authors can ask for it to be published as an RFC through
individual submission or by the Independent Submissions Editor.
Please reply by December 8, 2015.
--Paul Hoffman and Yaron Sheffer
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf
it is not adopted, the authors can ask for it to be published as an RFC
through individual submission or by the Independent Submissions Editor.
Please reply by December 8, 2015.
--Paul Hoffman and Yaron Sheffer
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
al solution needs channel binding, but
there was interest in us trying. If we fail at getting channel binding and/or
formal security proofs, that's OK, but it's worth the effort.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
anism.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
[[ Another nudge to keep this thread going. If you care about the charter,
please comment. ]]
On Jul 19, 2014, at 9:48 AM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> IPsec folks,
>
> Our existing charter (http://tools.ietf.org/wg/ipsecme/charters) is badly out
> of date. Below is a proposed charter revision. Ple
Posted here: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/minutes/minutes-90-ipsecme
Thanks to Jim Schaad for volunteering to be notetaker.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
Now posted: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/agenda/agenda-90-ipsecme
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
re the meeting.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-fragmentation/
Before we take Valery's changes back to the IESG, we want to be sure that the
WG agrees on all the text and, if not, makes more clarifications. Please send
any comments to the list by Tuesday, June 17.
--Paul Ho
away. If someone wants a document
finished before then, please don't wait: discuss it on the list and move it
forwards. There is nothing magic about being able to say "I made a presentation
at a meeting", particularly in this WG.
--Paul Hoffman
__
> sure to come.
Doing that on list would be possibly be more useful than waiting for the
meeting. Or not.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
that in Toronto
if there are a few documents that (a) have not been presented at previous
IPsecME WG meetings and (b) are related to IPsec.
Thoughts?
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
rns at all, please send
them to the mailing list before Wednesday May 14.
--Paul Hoffman
On May 7, 2014, at 5:50 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the IP Se
Thanks for the many offers! I accepted one and he has already finished the task.
Again, this WG works best when there are lots of volunteers for doing things
like reviews. Please keep this in mind when Yaron and I ask for volunteers in
the future.
--Paul Hoffman
help the WG and take this on.
I suspect this task would take at most only a few hours.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
Yaron obviously gets to call consensus on this.
On Apr 2, 2014, at 12:33 PM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> On 02 Apr 2014, at 13:25 , Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> That was certainly not the intention.
>
> OK.
>
>>> [IMPORTANT NOTE: A previous employer of mine shipped IPv4/IPv6
s when there are
security-sensitive options in the IP header, such as source routing headers.
Reducing the readability of this document to meet your views of AH does a
disservice to the overall value of the document.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
uot;efficiency". So I would change "undermines the efficacy
> of encryption". Maybe something like just "undermines the trustworthiness
> the encryption" (although that sounds a bit Colbert like :)
>
> s/perfers/prefers
I'll make these changes in -04. It turns out I need to do a rev anyway because
I forgot to list the new DES "MUST NOT" in the changes summary.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
If you were in London but didn't see this, please consider filling in the
survey. There are also questions for people who weren't in London but
participated remotely. The IAOC pays a lot of attention to the results of these
surveys.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Ray Pelletier
> Subject: [8
idea. If you
were not specific enough when writing the draft, you should probably just leave
it alone.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
On Mar 8, 2014, at 1:37 PM, Black, David wrote:
> - "SHOULD NOT-" is a better keyword than "SHOULD NOT+"
How do others feel about this? It feels like a bit of a bikeshed, but we may as
well be as helpful as possible.
--Paul Hoffman
__
On Mar 8, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Black, David wrote:
> What about 256-bit AES keys? They should also be a "MAY".
Good catch.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
next draft has more careful wording about AH and ESP; we'll ask the WG to
check it before passing the draft to Kathleen for IETF Last call.
--Paul Hoffman
___
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
ngs as is, but explain why AES-CBC differs in this respect from
> the others
The next draft changes AES-128-CBC to AES-CBC, and says:
In the following sections, all AES modes are for 128-bit AES. 192-bit AES
MAY be supported for those modes, but the requirements here are for 128-bit AES.
--Paul
1 - 100 of 589 matches
Mail list logo
