Hi!
Some days ago I had a mail discussion on the jdev@ mailing list
about messages to unsubscribed contacts and contacts in general.
Tomasz said that messages should generally go to the bare JID instead of
the full JID, and that the local routing is up to the server.
He meant, chat sessions
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Justin Karneges wrote:
It might be cool to for Bob to cryptographically prove that Alice is aware
that she is talking to him, but does that have much of a practical benefit?
Channel binding is a generic technique, so the privacy layer doesn't have
to be TLS - it might be
Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Greg Hudson wrote:
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 10:20 -0800, Justin Karneges wrote:
I don't understand this talk about the SASL negotiation being
attacked by a MITM when it is taking place over TLS. There is brief
mention of Bob possibly not having a certificate or
The XMPP Extensions Editor has received a proposal for a new XEP.
Title: Use of Domain-Based Service Names in XMPP SASL Negotiation
Abstract: This document specifies a method by which a connection manager
associated with an XMPP server can inform a connecting client about its
domain-based
On Wt, 2007-12-11 at 13:10 -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Because that's what it means to be in a chat session with someone --
you have a FullJID-to-FullJID connection, as it were.
This is kind of it is like this, because it is like this answer.
And as Robin pointed a chat session is a very
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 1:08 pm, Tomasz Sterna wrote:
On Wt, 2007-12-11 at 15:59 -0500, Greg Hudson wrote:
It's not what clients do currently, though. I'm not sure whether it's
wise to encourage such a fundamental change at this point.
It's not a change... yet.
There are clients that
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 9:15 am, Greg Hudson wrote:
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 10:20 -0800, Justin Karneges wrote:
I don't understand this talk about the SASL negotiation being attacked by
a MITM when it is taking place over TLS. There is brief mention of Bob
possibly not having a
