2005/9/23, Justin Karneges [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I've always thought it would be great to have normal IM and groupchat services
under one domain to simplify things. I know it is a departure from the
traditional jabberd approach to servers and components, but there's no
reason it couldn't be
2005/9/23, Justin Karneges [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I've always thought it would be great to have normal IM and
groupchat
services
under one domain to simplify things. I know it is a departure from
the
traditional jabberd approach to servers and components, but
there's no
reason it couldn't
JD Conley wrote:
In the multi-service enabled endpoint you'd just have to have a lookup
table mapping a given JID to its current type (chat room, pubsub
service, etc). We already do this today in our server for managed group
aliases and such. The service can no longer be a completely separate
Not really, if you use the example of SMTP you cant run two
entirely different email services on the same domain.
Just because a lot of server developers think of MUC and standard c2s as
two different components doesn't mean that users do. In fact, it's
exactly the opposite. Here's an
On 9/24/05, Richard Dobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just because a lot of server developers think of MUC and standard c2s as
two different components doesn't mean that users do. In fact, it's
Sorry but that is a bit of an erroneous comparison, in the cases where orgs
snip
I think the point
I think this is simply something terribly broken about most XMPP
implementations.
Im not convinced of this, personally I think the DNS situation is exactly as
it should be, lets use some examples of other situations.
SMTP
Lets say a users email address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] and no MX records or
On 9/23/05, Richard Dobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this is simply something terribly broken about most XMPP
implementations.
Im not convinced of this, personally I think the DNS situation is exactly as
it should be, lets use some examples of other situations.
SMTP
Lets say a
Op vrijdag 23 september 2005 15:46, schreef Richard Dobson:
snip
When I was first messing with jabber several years ago, it was to
setup a workgroup server in my large enterprise. It took me some time
to realize that those extra subdomains were really required, not
suggested. IIRC I
Richard,
Jabber is the only software
that I have heard of that breaks pieces out this way.
Not really, if you use the example of SMTP you cant run two
entirely different email services on the same domain.
Just because a lot of server developers think of MUC and standard c2s as
two
is one solution to this problem, simply implement the server
so that everything appears on the same domain name, you are
more likely to get overlaps of JID username parts when all
users and conference rooms etc are all running from the same
domain name, but its an entirely workable
Thanks for the bug report. We've now fixed the category and type (bug
fix will be in next release). The name is now Jive Messenger Server by
default, but that default can be changed by editing a configuration
file.
You are welcome ;)
Yep, same issue --
Richard,
Interesting solution but not exactly standard, and will only
work between servers that are running Jive Messenger,
True. However, the nice thing about the logic is that normal DNS is
tried first. We also recommend that users setup DNS for max
compatibility. Even so, the extra logic
-
From: Matt Tucker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jabber software development list jdev@jabber.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 6:34 AM
Subject: RE: [jdev] [ANN] Google Talk engineering manager live chat
Julian,
Maybe the two of you could discuss how and when S2S will be
implemented in your
Richard,
Just giving this a go and it seems the server directly at
jivesoftware.com is returning incorrect disco info
information for itself, i.e. it returns an identity of
identity category=services name=Messenger Server type=jabber/
Thanks for the bug report. We've now fixed the
Maybe the two of you could discuss how and when S2S will be
implemented in your servers so that we can all join in from our
regular Jabber (or Google Talk) accounts. =P
Julian
On 21 Sep 2005, at 0:39, Matt Tucker wrote:
JDev,
Rod Chavez, an engineering manager with the Google Talk
Julian,
Maybe the two of you could discuss how and when S2S will be
implemented in your servers so that we can all join in from
our regular Jabber (or Google Talk) accounts. =P
We've supported s2s in Jive Messenger for almost two months (since the
2.2 release). However, we did just discover
16 matches
Mail list logo
