On 11 Jan 2017, at 20:09, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
>
> Wed, 11 Jan 2017 19:56:43 +
> Kevin Smith wrote:
>
>> I’m obviously just about the last person to say we shouldn’t be
>> trying to modernise XMPP, given mix, bind2, etc., but this just
>> doesn’t seem like an area worth much effort as th
On 12 Jan 2017, at 09:48, Tobias Markmann wrote:
> This can be seen as a continuation of my classic thread on this very channel
> from 2014 titled "File Hashes in XEP-0234". It was so popular, that even I
> did lost interest in it. :D
>
> Back to the future, today. XEP-0300 doesn't specify an e
On 13.01.2017 10:27, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2017, at 20:09, Evgeny Khramtsov wrote:
>>
>> Wed, 11 Jan 2017 19:56:43 +
>> Kevin Smith wrote:
>>
>>> I’m obviously just about the last person to say we shouldn’t be
>>> trying to modernise XMPP, given mix, bind2, etc., but this just
>>> do
On the wave of SPAM...
The XEP looks ok, but I see problems with section 4 ("Use with the
Blocking Command"). It looks like some sort of traffic optimization, no?
This creates some module dependencies which is something I don't like
very much. For example, the XEP-0377 might be implemented by a
th
I'm really interested in seeing the changes in bind2. Even if they are just
notes.
Best regards
Michal Piotrowski
michal.piotrow...@erlang-solutions.com
On 13 January 2017 at 12:24, Florian Schmaus wrote:
> On 13.01.2017 10:27, Kevin Smith wrote:
> > On 11 Jan 2017, at 20:09, Evgeny Khramtsov
Hey,
First, I think we're better off if we think of blocking strangers by
default as a privacy protection measure, instead of a SPAM prevention
measure.
Second, MUC can be made to work if the server allows traffic from JIDs
to which directed presence has been sent.
Third, subscription requests s
