>Does a network of socket redirectors offer any benefits over just setting up more Jabber Servers with >AIM Transports? Meaning, you still have to find people to set up the free Socket Redirectors, why not >focus that energy on getting people to set up additional Jabber Servers.
[mb:] Good point. But I dont understand one aspect of that design. If I have my client configured to use server at jabber.org and its aim transport gets blocked, how does my client know to switch over to a different jabber server with a working Aim transport? You or I will know how to switch to a different server, but if I'm supporting 100's of users that becomes a big admin headake. Another issue is, its not easy to setup 100's of jabber servers. There is configuration, log files accounts etc. A benifits of the socket redirector apporach is that it should be a very simple program to setup and run. Very little or no configuration. Lets get one that can be run on unix, or windows or anything. Think of them as throwaways, they block one machine, we bring up three more. I think we want to use the "SETI" online model. Make it trivial to get on 1000's of machines. >Unless you have a critical mass even the socket redirectors are pretty easy to pick out and block. [mb:] If we design it to look like an AOL HTTP client, they will not have any way to distinguist between us and a corporate firewall user. >The key is to have the AIM traffic spread over 1000's of nodes. It is a matter of deciding where to >spend our energy. The Socket Redirectors will work, but so will the same number of Jabber Servers will >too. [mb:] Your correct if, we can solve the redirection issue on the client. The last think we want is to modify all of the existing jabber clients. Rashad _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
