On 9/23/05, Richard Dobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think this is simply something terribly broken about most XMPP > > implementations. > > Im not convinced of this, personally I think the DNS situation is exactly as > it should be, lets use some examples of other situations. > > SMTP > Lets say a users email address is [EMAIL PROTECTED] and no MX records or
Richard, I have to say I agree with Jive on this one. Not because I disagree with your SMTP and HTTP examples, they are flawless. The issue I have encountered myself is simply that it didn't make sense to me to have a different domain name for every service on a server. I was assuming all along that this was a design decision (or flaw) of jabberd1 to be honest, not a requirement of XMPP. After all, you can certainly run an SMTP and HTTP server and a million others all on the same server using the same domain name. Jabber is the only software that I have heard of that breaks pieces out this way. When I was first messing with jabber several years ago, it was to setup a workgroup server in my large enterprise. It took me some time to realize that those extra subdomains were really required, not suggested. IIRC I actually faked them with local host file entries during my experimentation. It was easier to do that than wade the bottomless pit that is IT support. So what I'm saying is all of your problems raised above would not be problems if everything could be done on one domain name. Wow, Jive is giving me that. Sounds like a feature to me. Sounds like a workaround and a dirty one at that to developers, but I would suggest that "everyone else" sees it differently. -- Psi webmaster (http://psi-im.org) im:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://halr9000.com
