Hi all.
I'm implementing a few ad-hoc commands in PyMSNt.
What should I send as a response if the requesting client doesn't have
permission to execute the command?
At the moment it goes like this
iq type=set to=msn.delx.cjb.net id=ac83a
command xmlns=http://jabber.org/protocol/commands;
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:21, Roberto Della Pasqua wrote:
Let me tell you that the spam problem of the SMTP is due to the fact that
everybody can send emails without authenticate in any server, just found a
relay server and use it.
This isn't the only way to send it. Spammers often have their
Hi TX,
Jabber solves the issue of clients spamming directly to servers, but not
the problem of spammers having their own valid domains.
But if spam come from a valid domain, mean that the domain sure know the
origin (because somewhere a user have done auth login), then all rely on law
forces :)
Sure. It will definitely stop people spamming from countries where
spamming is illegal, by moving them all to countries where it isn't.
Using blacklisted domains inside servers can work very well considering the
auth procedure.
Else, which techniques are you trying to implement?
1) async keys
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 19:05, Roberto Della Pasqua wrote:
Sure. It will definitely stop people spamming from countries where
spamming is illegal, by moving them all to countries where it isn't.
Using blacklisted domains inside servers can work very well considering the
auth procedure.
The
I gmane.network.jabber.devel, skrev James Bunton:
PyMSNt 0.9.4 has been released for those of you not wanting to try out
the avatars branch yet. It just contains bugfixes to 0.9.3.
Hi, I'm currently using the c-based MSN transport, but it isn't that
stable.. compared to the c-based
Hi, I'm currently using the c-based MSN transport, but it isn't that
stable..
As a user of the PyMSN-t transport, i can say that it is stable as a
rock. It has been a lot more stable than c-msnt since the first
release of the python version. I don't recall whether groupchat was
ever in
Hi All,
I imagine that the Google Talk Team is listening in on this
list so I'm going to make a request from them here. If
this is inappropriate or if someone knows of a better
channel to communicate with the team, please redirect me.
Let me start by saying Welcome (and thanks for
the target
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 20:20, Ian Paterson wrote:
The power of a single central authority would be open to abuse in the
future.
Sure, but it would be abuse by a central authority which people can freely
join, and doesn't seem to have anywhere to even hide a conspiracy if it
wanted to. It would
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 20:51, Rory wrote:
The current situation -
'gmail.com' domain hosted on 'talk.google.com' without
the DNS SRV record - requires unnecessary non-standard
(as per RFC3920) additions to an XMPP client/library.
Something like connecting to a different address isn't exactly
Hmmm...
A whitelist of domains? Or users?
So a central server has the list of ten millions domain, a sub server when a
new domain come will ask the central server for the GOOD or BAD. If the
central point will fail this can cause service break.
Imho the white/blacklist need be full
Hi Trejkaz,
On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 08:56:15PM +1000, Trejkaz wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 20:51, Rory wrote:
The current situation -
'gmail.com' domain hosted on 'talk.google.com' without
the DNS SRV record - requires unnecessary non-standard
(as per RFC3920) additions to an XMPP
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:06, Rory wrote:
If you permit the user to provide you with a server name and port number
then things become more complicated than they need to be. For instance,
does the user-supplied server name qualify as a valid identity for the
purpose of validating the server's X590
On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 10:19:08PM +1000, Trejkaz wrote:
Let's say you remove the option to connect to an alternative IP. This seals
off people like me who _need_ this setting to tunnel their XMPP connection
through a work firewall.
I'll grant you that you're situation sounds relatively
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 23:07, Remko Troncon wrote:
On 27 Aug 2005, at 14:59, Rory wrote:
A network scenario like:
How about the scenario where you are on a network which blocks all
communication to the outside world except ssh ?
That's our work network in a nutshell.
The SSH client does of
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:33:49 +0200, Rory [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow, and all this because I didn't think it was too much to ask that
people offering an XMPP service should make a simple DNS SRV entry if
they they wanted to host their service on a machine with a hostname
different from their
Op zaterdag 27 augustus 2005 11:20, schreef Trejkaz:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 19:05, Roberto Della Pasqua wrote:
Sure. It will definitely stop people spamming from countries where
spamming is illegal, by moving them all to countries where it isn't.
Using blacklisted domains inside servers
On 27 Aug 2005, at 15:38, Tijl Houtbeckers wrote:
Well, since google says in their FAQ that they don't have SRV
enabled *yet* (my emphasis) what's the fuzz about in the first
place? :)
Nu fuss, we just wanted to show that the possibility to set a custom
server in a client is useful, and
Hi Tijl,
On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 03:38:43PM +0200, Tijl Houtbeckers wrote:
Well, since google says in their FAQ that they don't have SRV enabled
*yet* (my emphasis) what's the fuzz about in the first place? :)
What I was really asking was that they make this entry
sooner rather than later.
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:15:26 +0200, Rory [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Tijl,
On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 03:38:43PM +0200, Tijl Houtbeckers wrote:
Well, since google says in their FAQ that they don't have SRV enabled
*yet* (my emphasis) what's the fuzz about in the first place? :)
What I was
Op zaterdag 27 augustus 2005 12:20, schreef Ian Paterson:
Trejkaz wrote:
The problem with blacklisting is that it
assumes all new servers are innocent.
A spammer gets to run amok until they're
caught, and then change hostnames.
A combination of whitelisting and
blacklisting would be
On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 04:17:37PM +0200, Tijl Houtbeckers wrote:
I doubt it's a 5 minute sysadmin job for Google, with their highly
distributed network and all. If you can do it in 5 minutes without
endangering their millions of dollars per hour operations, maybe they
should hire you
Op zaterdag 27 augustus 2005 13:15, schreef Roberto Della Pasqua:
Hmmm...
A whitelist of domains? Or users?
So a central server has the list of ten millions domain, a sub server when
a new domain come will ask the central server for the GOOD or BAD. If the
central point will fail this can
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:32:38 +0200, Sander Devrieze
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A 'mass spimmer' will probably set up his own server...
A spimmer would probably do the same as most spammers these days. Not set
up their own server but use compromised computers all over the internet.
These
Op zaterdag 27 augustus 2005 17:27, schreef Tijl Houtbeckers:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:32:38 +0200, Sander Devrieze
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A 'mass spimmer' will probably set up his own server...
A spimmer would probably do the same as most spammers these days. Not set
up their own server
Sander Devrieze wrote:
A spimmer would probably do the same as most spammers these days. Not set
up their own server but use compromised computers all over the internet.
These could either act as as mini servers
This will cost money/time and make it not profitable.
Is that so? Then why are
On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 10:19:08PM +1000, Trejkaz wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 22:06, Rory wrote:
If you permit the user to provide you with a server name and port number
then things become more complicated than they need to be. For instance,
does the user-supplied server name qualify as a
Op zaterdag 27 augustus 2005 18:43, schreef Bart van Bragt:
Sander Devrieze wrote:
A spimmer would probably do the same as most spammers these days. Not
set up their own server but use compromised computers all over the
internet. These could either act as as mini servers
This will cost
On 27 Aug 2005, at 19:58, Rory wrote:
You could run proxies inside firewalls that might be knowledgeable
about HTTP tunneling.
You always look at this from the viewpoint of a network
administrator. If you have no control over the network you are in
(i.e. you are not an admin), and the
On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 08:28:43PM +0200, Remko Troncon wrote:
On 27 Aug 2005, at 19:58, Rory wrote:
You could run proxies inside firewalls that might be knowledgeable
about HTTP tunneling.
You always look at this from the viewpoint of a network
administrator. If you have no control
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:13:38 +0200, Sander Devrieze
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Op zaterdag 27 augustus 2005 17:27, schreef Tijl Houtbeckers:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:32:38 +0200, Sander Devrieze
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A 'mass spimmer' will probably set up his own server...
A spimmer would
What I'm getting at here is division of labour. I don't think that
an XMPP client should be expected to know how to use HTTP tunneling
When did this conversation turn into one on HTTP tunneling ? As i
repeat in every post, all i am talking about is connecting to a
different XMPP server
Op zaterdag 27 augustus 2005 21:13, schreef Tijl Houtbeckers:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:13:38 +0200, Sander Devrieze
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Op zaterdag 27 augustus 2005 17:27, schreef Tijl Houtbeckers:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:32:38 +0200, Sander Devrieze
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A
On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 10:28:41PM +0200, Remko Troncon wrote:
When did this conversation turn into one on HTTP tunneling ? As i
repeat in every post, all i am talking about is connecting to a
different XMPP server than the one resolved from the JID. This is
what the original post was
Ear mine idea: user1 want contact user2. User2 don't has user1 in buddylist
(server side), the xmpp query a central database (distributed in some
points), if the user1 is spam, then don't forward.
My idea: user1 sends user2 an authreq to add user2 to their buddylist.
user2 has configured
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 07:21, Rory wrote:
2. Make the following entry in my hosts file:
127.0.0.1localhost jabber.org
Yeah. Actually, I used to do this trick before I started using multiple
servers. I wish the hosts file allowed me to override SRV entries as well as
A entries. :-)
TX
36 matches
Mail list logo
