On 22 Nov 2013, at 08:37, Robert Norris <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013, at 07:29 PM, Eric Koldeweij wrote: >> On 21-Nov-13 21:20, Solomon Peachy wrote: >>> I have mixed feelings about this, because I'm the only user on my >>> server, and only two folks on my roster aren't google-hosted. >>> Frankly, without Google federation I might as well not bother. >> >> I second this. Many of my users have contacts within Google and I do >> not wish to break connection between them. > > Just to add a datapoint, I will not be doing anything to FastMail's XMPP > servers to make them unable to communicate with Google. Not that I > disagree with the goal of getting secure connections everywhere, but I > have to consider the fact that the vast majority of my users talk to > people on Google-hosted XMPP accounts. It wouldn't do anything for them > to cut them off. > > Maybe if we were primarily an XMPP provider it'd be different, but we're > not - its a secondary service at best. I don't have the time or the > interest right now to be an activist. > > I know we're not a big provider, and not a free provider, so maybe what > we do doesn't count for much, but there it is anyway. I am watching the > whole process closely though. I do hope a workable solution is found! > > Cheers, > Rob N, > FastMail.
Same here, we can't cut off paying customers. Kind Regards, David http://zerp.ly/dbanes xmpp: [email protected] Home: 01494 533266 Mobile: 0782 5138 214 - Come to Kop Hill Climb - 20th & 21st September 2014 - www.kophillclimb.info
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
