On Feb 10, 2009, at 11:25 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com
wrote:
It seems not so sensible when the admin happens to be authenticating
directly to the server hosting the chatroom. But for the case
where the
administrator
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com wrote:
I'm thinking more about a non-comprised server case, but just the case of
poor administrative practices.
Ok, I follow, thanks. Given that, maybe keeping password requirements
on all affiliations is sensible.
/K
On Monday we had some good discussions in Brussels about e2e security,
BOSH, pubsub/PEP, Jingle, file transfer, mobile optimization, abuse
reporting, etc. Yesterday I wrote up a series of reports on these
discussions, which I sent to the more focused lists we run. The reports
(one also by Rob
On Wed Feb 11 13:06:24 2009, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Kurt Zeilenga
kurt.zeile...@isode.com wrote:
I'm thinking more about a non-comprised server case, but just the
case of
poor administrative practices.
Ok, I follow, thanks. Given that, maybe keeping password
Dave Cridland wrote:
On Wed Feb 11 13:06:24 2009, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Kurt Zeilenga
kurt.zeile...@isode.com wrote:
I'm thinking more about a non-comprised server case, but just the
case of
poor administrative practices.
Ok, I follow, thanks. Given that,
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 04:58:01 -0800
Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com wrote:
On Feb 10, 2009, at 11:25 PM, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Kurt Zeilenga
kurt.zeile...@isode.com
wrote:
It seems not so sensible when the admin happens to be
authenticating
Just a reason NOT to require a PW for the owner: Some admin might have
changed it and now the owner can't join the room anymore or change it
back.
--
Jonathan
PGP.sig
Description: Signierter Teil der Nachricht
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Jonathan Schleifer
js-xmpp-standa...@webkeks.org wrote:
Just a reason NOT to require a PW for the owner: Some admin might have
changed it and now the owner can't join the room anymore or change it back.
That same admin could simply remove the owner from the
The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
Title: Jingle In-Band Bytestreams Transport
Abstract: This specification defines a Jingle transport method that results in
sending data via the In-Band Bytestreams (IBB) protocol defined in XEP-0047.
Essentially this transport
The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
Title: Jingle SOCKS5 Bytestreams Transport Method
Abstract: This specification defines a Jingle transport method that results in
sending data via the SOCKS5 Bytestreams (S5B) protocol defined in XEP-0065.
Essentially this
Version 0.15 of XEP-0177 (Jingle Raw UDP Transport Method) has been released.
Abstract: This specification defines a Jingle transport method that results in
sending media data using raw datagram associations via the User Datagram
Protocol (UDP). This simple transport method does not provide NAT
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Matthew Wild mwi...@gmail.com wrote:
This single issue aside however, I do think that the total lack of any
way to track which services a JID is affiliated with is scary. This
affects transports/gateways, MUCs, etc. Are roster subscriptions even
cancelled on
Hi,
When messages of type 'groupchat' and 'error' are sent to a
non-existing resource, they are routed to the set of highest priority
available resources. IMHO this behaviour in counter-intuitive. I don't
see why an unintended resource would want a groupchat or error
message, or how it's supposed
I'm not entirely sure, but I think that nobody is ever supposed to
send an error message to a bare JID. Errors are sent in a response to
an invalid stanza, which always originates from a resource. As for the
groupchat, I would suggest taking a look at the relevant XEP.
2009/2/11 Waqas Hussain
On Wednesday 11 February 2009 05:06:24 Kevin Smith wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Kurt Zeilenga kurt.zeile...@isode.com
wrote:
I'm thinking more about a non-comprised server case, but just the case of
poor administrative practices.
Ok, I follow, thanks. Given that, maybe keeping
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Jiří Zárevúcký
zarevucky.j...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not entirely sure, but I think that nobody is ever supposed to
send an error message to a bare JID. Errors are sent in a response to
an invalid stanza, which always originates from a resource. As for the
Am 11.02.2009 um 16:08 schrieb Matthew Wild:
That same admin could simply remove the owner from the owner list
and be done :)
Nope, at least in ejabberd, an admin can't take it from an owner
IIRC ;).
--
Jonathan
PGP.sig
Description: Signierter Teil der Nachricht
Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
Am 11.02.2009 um 16:08 schrieb Matthew Wild:
That same admin could simply remove the owner from the owner list and
be done :)
Nope, at least in ejabberd, an admin can't take it from an owner IIRC ;).
The service-wide admin, not the room admin.
/psa
smime.p7s
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:25 AM, Jonathan Schleifer
js-xmpp-standa...@webkeks.org wrote:
Am 11.02.2009 um 16:08 schrieb Matthew Wild:
That same admin could simply remove the owner from the owner list and be
done :)
Nope, at least in ejabberd, an admin can't take it from an owner IIRC ;).
On 2008-11-09 11:05, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
Hi!
In Gajim, this diff was recently committed:
http://trac.gajim.org/changeset/10593
That lead to a discussion in the Gajim team whether that is right.
Section 2.3 of XEP-0107 says:
“A user MAY provide a mood extension in a specific message in
Yeah, it really seems to contradict a bit..
2009/2/11 Waqas Hussain waqa...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Jiří Zárevúcký
zarevucky.j...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not entirely sure, but I think that nobody is ever supposed to
send an error message to a bare JID. Errors are sent in a
21 matches
Mail list logo
