Yeah, I would prefer if we worked more on the Jabber interface to JabberForge... and in the process we could come up with some JEPs which would be useful for things like JabberForge in general, along with getting clients to support some of these things. (headline CVS updates would be nice - and I could immediately come up with quite a few things to put into an <x> for cvs commits that could be a JEP)
Julian -- email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thomas Muldowney wrote: > Well I guess the gatewaying will stay, but I'm completely against a BBS > =) What does that add? another interface without a common protocol to > access elements inside it? No thanks. Yes it has cool neato factors, > and I even have a special one running on one of my servers, but i don't > think it fits the bill here. > > --temas > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 01:25:07PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>>>Please keep the mailing lists! I'm on some mozilla-* mailing list, too, >>>> >>>What do you think about a "telnet" access for JabberForge? I think it >>> >>Yes to both! Except for SSH instead of telnet. >> >>Ted - BBSes? ex 1:105/36... >> _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
