<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Tim,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It seems your intent was to call out in the charter that any Guideline needs to include not only validation requirements but CA infrastructure security requirements as well. Is that accurate?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks,</div><div class="">Peter<br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On May 18, 2018, at 8:23 AM, Tim Hollebeek via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" class="">public@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">Adopting the existing NSG by reference is exactly what I think the S/MIME group should do.<o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">We should keep them the same and in sync across all WGs whenever possible.<o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">-Tim<o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div><div style="border-style: none none none solid; border-left-width: 1.5pt; border-left-color: blue; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;" class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">To stave that off, I’d like to accelerate moving the NSG work to a top-level Forum group and get it out of the Server Certificate group. The only complication I see is that by moving it to a top-level group, we’d have to resolve whether it becomes across-the-board mandatory, or something that each WG can adopt as a requirement or not as they see fit. It sounds like this is highlighting the need to accomplish that sooner rather than later; for the time being, would it work for the nascent S/MIME WG to simply adopt the existing NSG by reference?<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;" class="">-- Jos<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Consolas;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Consolas;" class="">-- <br class="">Jos Purvis (<a href="mailto:jopurvis@cisco.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">jopurvis@cisco.com</a>)<br class="">.:|:.:|:. cisco systems | Cryptographic Services<br class="">PGP: 0xFD802FEE07D19105 | +1 919.991.9114 (desk)</span><o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></span></div><div style="border-style: solid none none; border-top-width: 1pt; border-top-color: rgb(181, 196, 223); padding: 3pt 0in 0in;" class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><b class=""><span style="font-size: 12pt;" class="">From:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt;" class="">Public <<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>> on behalf of Tim Hollebeek via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">public@cabforum.org</a>><br class=""><b class="">Reply-To:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Tim Hollebeek <<a href="mailto:tim.hollebeek@digicert.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">tim.hollebeek@digicert.com</a>>, CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">public@cabforum.org</a>><br class=""><b class="">Date:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Friday, 18 May, 2018 at 10:12<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><b class="">To:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Ryan Sleevi <<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">sleevi@google.com</a>><br class=""><b class="">Cc:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">public@cabforum.org</a>><br class=""><b class="">Subject:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Re: [cabfpub] For Discussion: S/MIME Working Group Charter<o:p class=""></o:p></span></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><o:p class=""> </o:p></div></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">I’m interested in hearing feedback from the entire forum about what we can pass.<o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">I’m less interested in rehashing old debates and holding this charter hostage to them.<o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">The idea that NetSec is a set of cross-cutting requirements that applies to all working groups has been mentioned many times and has never been controversial, so I’m not sure how it morphed into a fundamental objection.<o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">-Tim<o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="border-style: none none none solid; border-left-width: 1.5pt; border-left-color: blue; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;" class=""><div class=""><div style="border-style: solid none none; border-top-width: 1pt; border-top-color: rgb(225, 225, 225); padding: 3pt 0in 0in;" class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><b class="">From:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Ryan Sleevi [<a href="mailto:sleevi@google.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">mailto:sleevi@google.com</a>]<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Friday, May 18, 2018 10:06 AM<br class=""><b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Tim Hollebeek <<a href="mailto:tim.hollebeek@digicert.com" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">tim.hollebeek@digicert.com</a>><br class=""><b class="">Cc:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">public@cabforum.org</a>>; Dimitris Zacharopoulos <<a href="mailto:jimmy@it.auth.gr" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">jimmy@it.auth.gr</a>><br class=""><b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [cabfpub] For Discussion: S/MIME Working Group Charter<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">Tim,<o:p class=""></o:p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">I'm not clear - are you saying that you have no intention of removing the proposal for a separate Network Security document from the S/MIME charter? This is a real and fundamental objection, and I hope I've articulated why it's problematic in a charter, and further, problematic in scope of activities. I'm hoping you can clearly articulate the value, concretely demonstrating why this is an immediate and cross-cutting problem to be solved (and at the potential of conflict with other bits). Your proposal - for example, to split NetSec into a separate CWG - demonstrates how and why it's explicitly unnecessary to include in a draft charter.<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">If you're not open to suggestions, then it seems the only alternative is to provide a counter-charter proposal, and have a run-off, and that seems like a very silly thing to do, when there's a real opportunity to collaborate here, and that you seem to be outright rejecting without justification.<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">With respect to the notion of EV for S/MIME, I again reiterate that it's wholly unnecessary to incorporate within the charter. Beyond being a clearly marketing concept - in which it tries to distinguish itself from the existing space - it's something that as a scope of work that, if there is demonstrable value in such levels of validation, it can be incorporated within a BRs. If you can't get a BRs you don't believe is secure for purpose, then you're explicitly stating in the goal of WG is to fail in the mission. Conversely, if you get a BRs that are, then you don't necessarily need an "extended" version.<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">My take away from these responses is that you're not actually interested in feedback, as I'm trying to give clear and actionable explanations and rationale for these positions. I can understand if you disagree, but is there an opportunity here to collaborate on a sensible baseline, and to address this feedback, or are you setting out a charter that seeks to outright reject concerns that could help us find productive solutions, quicker?<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 9:25 AM, Tim Hollebeek <<a href="mailto:tim.hollebeek@digicert.com" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">tim.hollebeek@digicert.com</a>> wrote:<o:p class=""></o:p></div><blockquote style="border-style: none none none solid; border-left-width: 1pt; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 0in 0in 0in 6pt; margin: 5pt 0in 5pt 4.8pt;" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">I agree mixing ClientAuth and S/MIME is a bad idea.<o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">NetSec is needed by all WGs. It’s not getting removed. Hopefully all WGs will try to to keep their versions and effective dates in sync, to prevent audit pains. As we’ve discussed several times, the NetSec legacy WG is probably going to convert itself into a top level WG. It will the approve documents that can be incorporated by other WGs by reference. Or just used in conjunction with other WG products.<o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">Identity and validation is another important cross-cutting concern. It isn’t a “pet marketing product”.<o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">-Tim<o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="border-style: none none none solid; border-left-width: 1.5pt; border-left-color: blue; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;" class=""><div class=""><div style="border-style: solid none none; border-top-width: 1pt; border-top-color: rgb(225, 225, 225); padding: 3pt 0in 0in;" class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><span class="gmail-"><b class="">From:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Public [mailto:<a href="mailto:public-bounces@cabforum.org" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">public-bounces@cabforum.org</a>]<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b class="">On Behalf Of<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></b>Ryan Sleevi via Public</span><br class=""><b class="">Sent:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Friday, May 18, 2018 9:18 AM<br class=""><b class="">To:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Dimitris Zacharopoulos <<a href="mailto:jimmy@it.auth.gr" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">jimmy@it.auth.gr</a>>; CA/Browser Forum Public Discussion List <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">public@cabforum.org</a>><br class=""><span class="gmail-"><b class="">Subject:</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Re: [cabfpub] For Discussion: S/MIME Working Group Charter</span><o:p class=""></o:p></div></div></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 12:57 AM, Dimitris Zacharopoulos via Public <<a href="mailto:public@cabforum.org" target="_blank" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline;" class="">public@cabforum.org</a>> wrote:<o:p class=""></o:p></div><div class=""><div class=""><blockquote style="border-style: none none none solid; border-left-width: 1pt; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 0in 0in 0in 6pt; margin: 5pt 0in 5pt 4.8pt;" class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;"><span class="gmail-m5082498152913763417gmail-"> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></p><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">On 18/5/2018 2:51 πμ, Ryan Sleevi via Public wrote:<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><blockquote style="margin-top: 5pt; margin-bottom: 5pt;" class=""><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">I don't think it's a cross-EKU situation, though, but I'm glad we're in agreement.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><o:p class=""></o:p></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">An email server certificate is an id-kp-serverAuth EKU. That's already covered by another WG<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div></div></blockquote><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><br class="">I sincerely hope that id-kp-clientAuth EKU will also be covered by this WG since there will be common validation requirements for Subject information, as with S/MIME. It seems too much overhead to spawn an entirely different WG to deal just with clientAuth.<br class=""><br class="">If people agree, how about using the name "Client and S/MIME Certificate WG" which seems aligned with the "Server Certificate WG"?<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">As I've mentioned several times, it would be good to actually focus on a constrained, defined problem, before you proverbially try to boil the ocean.<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">It is not obvious that there will be common validation requirements, because the id-kp-clientAuth situation has a vast dimension of possible uses and spectrum. It's not actually reflective of the deployed reality that the validation requirements are the same. It also is based on an entirely separate notion of identity.<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">So no, I don't agree, because they really are substantially different in deployed reality - and an S/MIME WG is, in itself, a sizable undertaking just to get S/MIME BRs, due to the broad spectrum of client capabilities and CA past-practices - and the lifetime of extant certificates that presents unique challenges to defining a sensible and realistic profile.<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">A good charter - one that leads to productive engagement from a broad set of participants while actually delivering meaningful improvements - is one that keeps itself narrowly focused on the task at hand, produces results, and then looks to recharter based on the things you knew were out there, but agreed not to discuss until you actually completed the work. That allows you to keep momentum, focus, and participation. Just look at the challenges each of our (legacy) WG has faced with a broad remit, in that the set of topics has made it difficult both to engage participation of the broader Forum and to actually make forward progress, because it's constantly having to deal with 'all these things' or trying to do 'all these things'.<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">When we see narrowly focused ballots and efforts that try to solve a specific set of problems, then we make progress. The validation WG's effort at 3.2.2.4 is a prime example of that - a prolonged effort that directly benefited from being focused on that problem, and ruling some things (like 3.2.2.5) out of scope of the discussion in order to make progress on the narrow set.<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div></div><div class=""><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">The same too is in the charter. Let's not try to encompass pet marketing projects (EV for S/MIME), "things we might need but we don't know why" (network security), or "things that are kinda related, but only in some domains" (id-kp-clientAuth). Let's focus on the problem at hand - S/MIME authentication - keeping the WG scoped narrowly and on task, and deliver something that can help users have faith in the Web PKI to deliver tangible benefits in that space, rather than the reality we have today.<o:p class=""></o:p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div></div></div></div></div><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">_______________________________________________</span><br style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">Public mailing list</span><br style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><a href="mailto:Public@cabforum.org" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class="">Public@cabforum.org</a><br style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><a href="https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public" style="color: purple; text-decoration: underline; font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class="">https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public</a></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>