ARP schrieb:
> This is what I am sending for the server
Then you should correct it ... (remove the "/" at the end of the auth
start tag.
Matthias
--
Matthias Wimmer Fon +49-700 77 00 77 70
Züricher Str. 243Fax +49-89 95 89 91 56
81476 Münchenhttp://ma.tthias.eu/
This is what I am sending for the server
- Original Message -
From: "Remko Troncon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jabber software development list"
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 5:00 PM
Subject: [jdev] Re: Incorrect Encoding
On 15 Nov 2006, at 20:47, ARP wrote:
send('mechanism="
On 15 Nov 2006, at 20:47, ARP wrote:
send('mechanism="PLAIN"/>'+auth_info+'');
Are you sending an empty element, or is that a copy paste
typo ?
cheers,
Remko
Thx Guys,
But I made this and did not work:
auth_info :=
StrTobase64(chr(0)+'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'+chr(0)+'mypassword');
send('mechanism="PLAIN"/>'+auth_info+'');
Well, the server continues answering with:
Alexandre
Brazil
- Original Message -
From: "Norman Rasmussen" <[EMAIL
On 11/15/06, Norman Rasmussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My guess this is a bug on Google's end. I wonder if any of the google
guys would be able to confirm this.
woops, my bad. I thought Google's servers were totally wrong, turns
out they just _require_ the SASL auth data when the auth mech
On 11/15/06, ARP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, I am tryingmake a auth in talk.google.com, but I am having some
problems.
When I receive from the server:
xmlns:stream="http://etherx.jabber.org/streams";xmlns="jabber:client">
PLAIN
X-GOOGLE-TOKEN
I answer with:
But the
Hi ARP!
ARP schrieb:
> But I did not understand what is xml character data. You could give an
> example to me please ?
It means that the element should contain a zero byte, followed
by your username, followed by a zero byte, and your password. This data
should be BASE64-encoded.
How this works
Conley, forgives for my ignorancia but I did not understand very well.
I read RFC 3920, but still I did not understand:
The RFC 3920 says:
1.. The initiating entity selects a mechanism by sending an element
qualified by the 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl' namespace to the receiving
entit
It looks like Google is requiring the initial response be sent. See
section 6.2 in RFC 3920.
-JD
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of ARP
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 8:25 AM
To: Jabber software development list
Subject: [jdev] Incorrect Encoding
Hi Guys,
"Norman Rasmussen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've been playing with OpenID and using the XEP-0070 example as a
> source for logic. It was very irritating to have a unique resource
> all the time because Psi loads each one in a new window.
Did you try the new XEP-0070 support from SVN?
> Whi
Hi Guys,
Well, I am trying make a auth in talk.google.com, but I am having some problems.
When I receive from the server:
xmlns:stream="http://etherx.jabber.org/streams"; xmlns="jabber:client">
PLAIN
X-GOOGLE-TOKEN
I answer with:
But the server sends to me:
Why this is happeni
Le mercredi 15 novembre 2006 03:01, Daniel Henninger a écrit :
> Today I was having a discussion with another developer about one of
> the 'standards' that's been in place for a little while and it got me
> waffling back and forth as to whether it's a "good" standard or not.
> I'll get right to the
On 10/29/06, Magnus Henoch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Norman Rasmussen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Psi doesn't like the comma in the resource name (I think it allows
> multiple recipients seperated with a comma). You could use date('c')
> or date('U') instead,
Changed.
> or why not login w
Hi-
I am looking for a Jabber expert for a new project based in London.
Working with an experienced team, the project is based around the creation of a
youth focused mobile community.
If anyone is interested in finding out more, please email me at [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Cheers,
BenM
Hello,
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 09:05:42AM +0100, Carlo v. Loesch wrote:
> On the technical issue of [EMAIL PROTECTED] i must say I really
> dislike how Jabber cannot deal with a clean transparent notation
> like msn:[EMAIL PROTECTED] These kludgy jid-deformations are both ugly and
> hard to underst
Maciek Niedzielski typeth:
| As far as I know, % was used in the same way in very old times, in SMTP,
| in cases when it was impossible to send email directly to
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Don't ask me why why it was impossible, I don't
| know the story well - maybe it was internal domain, or maybe not
|
16 matches
Mail list logo
