Michael Schmidt wrote: > Hello Kevin, thanks for the feedback, I am just interested in research
As far as I can see from your behavior on the Thunderbird list (I have not followed your comments in the Evolution or OpenOffice communities), for some reason you are interested not in research but in pushing the retroshare concept onto developers who are not interested in retroshare. In other words, you are a troll. > and found the 2 serverless descriptions for xep 174. There is only one protocol definition for link-local messaging: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0174.html That protocol is not intended for general use over the Internet, only for specialized communications on a local network. > I quoted the psi-list and merged the quotations together. You wrote > "THERE is a serverless xep 174.." and before that chapter is quoted, > *I* added, "IF .. there is a serverless jabber". In fact you misqouted quite a few people. For example, on the Psi list "dev" said: "But SSL can't be used if you are routing it through the server." You changed that to: "But PGP can't be used if you are routing it through the server." And so on. We don't appreciate falsehoods on this list. People can check your changes by visiting the Psi archives: http://lists.affinix.com/pipermail/psi-devel-affinix.com/2007-October/date.html Plus you (or your fellow retroshare advocates) have already wasted enough of our time with this "jabber 2" garbage: https://stpeter.im/?p=2031 If you have a point to make other than pushing retroshare, please make your point. If not, please go bother someone else. And I back up "please" by noting that I am the list admin and will ban you (as have other developer communities) if you don't behave. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
