-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 5/22/13 10:32 AM, Kim Alvefur wrote: > On 2013-05-22 18:22, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: >> PS: I am wondering whether the claimed chat spam problems >> mentioned in the press articles are actually true? > > It matches what was said before, search this list for "spammy > invites".
I think it was a bit over-the-top for Chee Chew to claim that the "majority" of the server-to-server connectivity to the Google Talk service was established by "organizations or individuals looking to bombard Google Talk users with chat spam". Having talked with journalists here and there, I freely admit that misquoting might have occurred here. But the spam issue we've been fighting of late emerged relatively recently -- I don't think you can claim that this was a big problem in the period from 2005 (or the launch of the Jabber network in 1999) until 2010 or 2011. In any case, I say let's continue to focus on improving XMPP. When people get sick of all these silos again, as I expect they will, we'll be ready. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRnPUAAAoJEOoGpJErxa2pE1QQAK9qxDe2lK4TEFwGIVJjOd8s reD1FKtK1GKO6GvewBpCWaYNrzB1NSVIlQbDVCLgDRGXFZKb32hPOncvUXthbPDe fW0OncKVOGSi/rZzMS4D9CFO2R4ypGvaVGa/UCydIfW5Rr4LzsDFZZ5hD3TbhV1s bpRSSxV72L5B6jSVfYzrm8UdsfsyJVXtZeSIY2ft2H2XzdB7zJpJ8MF2KlZm4niS cSHCd76rfJXpScUVu+dSOJDDeqLOOVwU05fcxogxu3Wv8tyzJDFnl+xySvszyQIh 7hL//aqJXk/zQ351lWXrHmx46tPq6mr14KH6k/HaadzJec/DquPym0iOklDlE44d gpdamExCZy7CyEs5/klzlpOOK21HiwoF8xoN5IWbd7Nfzq24+vQE3Lpu6+BWD9zb MzcwgZ/xw1Vpcg784FN86h5zh7zfdY/FcFLUQ354EdYt59dACwqlxJ7n/NckBT2X LMSoXvI9yz38U9hhXrFi+OBSsxxt+UdeD8fsZ0SrF1ytXY1VAqyStpdcbYUGATwH qlx3czRofX3/Uls8EaK4RG8ov04k8DsiseQGw8joXXrb78mG8TO0uNrnLyUKLWNe EFH5fXOS+j0+lxCVESc6LrVXhX+woU0mt7ptvrReZJkkyAlKjloZfmNA6jFACU1f wfnKSb56TfehEIQae0Ix =7x81 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
