Re: [Operators] Flood from uaznia.net users

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Badlop bad...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Grégoire Menuel gregoire.men...@gmail.com wrote: Yesterday some of the users of my MUC server (chat.jabberfr.org) complained about some flood coming from the uaznia.net server. A dizains of users

Re: [Operators] Please temporarily remove moo.im

Hey, On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Timon Reinhardti...@lizmo.de wrote: Hi, due to massive spam/bot registrations I have disabled in-band registration for moo.im. It will take me some time to get an alternative registration (webform + captcha) running, so for the meantime, please remove

Re: [Operators] Please temporarily remove moo.im

2009/9/18 Paul W p...@mcrides.co.nz: Hey Matthew, Any progress on this on releasing code? I'd been an early adopter :) bug tester . .etc etc I'm using MySQL .. but it can't be that hard to port to a different db :) Working on it, expect a post to this list when it's released :) Matthew

[Operators] On indirection in SRV record targets

According to RFC 2782, SRV record targets are *not* allowed to be alias records, this includes CNAMEs and PTRs for example. I just made a change (not yet checked in) to Prosody which (unintentionally) would render domains configured in such a way unreachable. I restarted my server with the new

Re: [Operators] Openfire 3.6.4 (jabber.iitsp.com) vs. jabber.org

Hey Nigel, On 3 July 2010 17:33, Nigel Kukard nkuk...@lbsd.net wrote: Hi there Arsimael, Prosody Server: http://prosody.im Prosody looks pretty cool lua ... I don't REALLY like scripting languages, but at this point in time I'm close to trying anything really. Not sure I have any

Re: [Operators] gtalk s2s internal server error?

On 25 July 2010 21:49, David Mohr damaili...@mcbf.net wrote: Hi, I just started running my own jabber server. It's prosody 0.6.1 (debian lenny's version), and today I started getting errors talking to gtalk. Has anyone else had trouble like this? It's certainly new to me... About the only

Re: [Operators] fallback, gmail and s2s

On 27 April 2011 11:07, Marco Cirillo mara...@lightwitch.org wrote: Il 27/04/2011 04:07, sergio ha scritto: On 04/27/2011 05:58 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: At jabber.org we turned off the _jabber record about 5 years ago and we never heard a complaint. hermes.jabber.org and jabber.org

Re: [Operators] public XMPP service: forumanalogue.fr

On 23 May 2012 12:18, Paul Staroch paulc...@rueckgr.at wrote: Hi, Am 2012-05-23 13:04, schrieb Clément Février: I'm wondering when the server will appear in the list at xmpp.net ? I assume that this is not going to happen. Although Peter Saint-Andre repeatedly promised to update the list,

Re: [Operators] google abandoning XMPP??

On 22 May 2013 16:02, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im wrote: On the other hand, not needing to interoperate with Google Talk might free us to more aggressively work on network security improvements. I say let's take this as an opportunity rather than a disappointment. Agreed. We're

Re: [Operators] spam resistance (was: Re: google abandoning XMPP??)

On 23 May 2013 23:50, Justin Uberti jube...@google.com wrote: On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Dave Cridland d...@cridland.net wrote: On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Justin Uberti jube...@google.com wrote: That seems like an overly cynical assessment of the situation. Speaking as an

Re: [Operators] The Google issue

On 22 November 2013 15:31, Solomon Peachy pi...@shaftnet.org wrote: On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 09:50:43AM +, Dave Cridland wrote: However, I stress - the point, to me, of the 4th January test is not to cut connections to Google, or send some Message, or anything else along those lines. Oh,

Re: [Operators] Future of XMPP Re: The Google issue

On 4 December 2013 13:05, Ralph Meijer ral...@ik.nu wrote: Alternatively, it makes total sense to use a different protocol on PANs and/or LANs and then bridge it to XMPP for WAN transport. For example, Peter Waher is working on bridging MQTT and XMPP, and MQTT also has a special profile for

Re: [Operators] Future of XMPP Re: The Google issue

On 4 December 2013 13:56, Alexander Holler hol...@ahsoftware.de wrote: Am 04.12.2013 14:05, schrieb Ralph Meijer: Alternatively, it makes total sense to use a different protocol on PANs and/or LANs and then bridge it to XMPP for WAN transport. For example, Peter Waher is working on bridging

Re: [Operators] Chatme.im to prosody

On 4 January 2014 18:34, Thomas cama...@gmail.com wrote: Hi We are migrated chatme.im from openfire to prosody MySQL, about 50k users. Thank you prosody team Excellent news! :) Glad you like it. It's exciting to see larger and larger servers migrating. The largest I knew about till now was

Re: [Operators] Prosody + Candy Chat resources

Hi Leho, On 5 January 2014 20:13, Leho Kraav l...@kraav.com wrote: Hi all Looking at the chatme.im thread, it got me curious - does anyone here know any additional resources for work done on Candy Chat other than the github forks? I don't know of any open-source additions to it that aren't

Re: [Operators] Removing SSLv3 from ejabberd 2.1.x and 13.x

Hi, On 7 January 2014 01:16, Justin Bull m...@justinbull.ca wrote: Hello, It has come to my attention that I should alert this list to an open PR I have for ejabberd: https://github.com/processone/ejabberd/pull/124 It's a simple PR targeting their 2.1.x branch (the version jabber.ccc.de

Re: [Operators] ch3kr.net/.de to prosody

On 9 January 2014 16:40, Torsten Reichard t.reich...@ab-storm.de wrote: successfully migrated from ejabberd to prosody mysql, i think! :-) prosody is really easy to conf/edit. migrating of a few hundred bots was easy as well. i love it! Welcome aboard! :) Regards, Matthew

Re: [Operators] debian.org SIP and XMPP

Hi Daniel, On 18 January 2014 21:50, Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au wrote: Hi all, We have just enabled federated SIP for debian.org. It is very basic, just a SIP proxy and TURN server. People can register and make calls to each other and other federated SIP domains using TLS. There

Re: [Operators] debian.org SIP and XMPP

On 19 January 2014 21:28, Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au wrote: On 19/01/14 10:46, Dave Cridland wrote: On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.com.au wrote: As mentioned in the other email, FOSDEM is coming up, maybe that will be an opportunity to discuss in person?

Re: [Operators] transitive federations?

On 19 August 2014 16:23, Hiers, David david.hi...@adp.com wrote: Hi, Are XMPP federation transitive? In other words, if A federates with B, and B federates with C, can A send traffic to C through B? No, they cannot. XMPP server-to-server traffic always flows directly from one domain to

Re: [Operators] SSLv3 is out.

On 15 October 2014 08:47, Jonas Wielicki xmpp-operat...@sotecware.net wrote: I’m not confident that this attack is (like BEAST and CRIME) relevant for XMPP. It requires that the attacker is able to induce several SSL connections, with the offset of the data to be attacked (which must be the

Re: [Operators] Annoying spam

On 10 November 2015 at 19:25, Simon Josefsson wrote: > I had the same thought -- is there a way for a remote server to find out > valid JIDs by talking to my server? I should put a tcpdump on my server > to see exactly what these spammers are doing. I had two connections >

Re: [Operators] Please enable Forward Secrecy for your servers!

On 5 October 2015 at 02:04, Mike Barnes wrote: > What we need to be doing is putting information about the quality of > encryption used in a conversation in front of the users, and letting > them make informed decisions, instead of fracturing the network > invisibly. I

[Operators] [ANN] Prosody 0.9.9 security release available

Hi folks, This release contains important fixes for two security issues recently discovered in Prosody. It also contains various other fixes and improvements we have made since 0.9.8. We strongly recommend that you upgrade your server as soon as possible. Another important note is that for a

Re: [Operators] Spam Problem And Its Simple Solution

On 2 December 2016 at 10:04, Tomasz Sterna wrote: > W dniu 19.11.2016, sob o godzinie 15∶19 +0300, użytkownik A napisał: >> Very easy. Popular clients just incorporated simple anti-spam >> measures to perform human-testing for any new senders. > There also is an IM2000 proposal

[Operators] XEP-0198 usage in the wild, July 2018

Hi folks, I'm working on some new code and wondered if I could finally drop support for the older XEP-0198 namespace. We currently support both the :2 and :3 namespaces, because clients were predominantly using :2 for a long time. It looks like things have improved, but it's still a mixed bag.