On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 08:24:28PM -0300, Gaston Dombiak wrote:
I've been reading the rfc3920 spec and I have a question about TLS. Section
5.1.3 says:
When a receiving entity that complies with this specification receives an
initial stream header that includes the 'version' attribute set
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 08:33:19AM +0200, Jacek Konieczny wrote:
That seems like an error in the specification. StartTLS is required for
implementation, but may be disabled and stream:features/ element is exactly
for this -- showing which features are available and enabled and which are
not.
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 03:09:52PM -0700, Ralph Giles wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 08:12:09PM +1000, Trejkaz wrote:
The difficulty with that approach, of course, is that it can't possibly
with
with existing, standard IQ queries. I don't suppose we need some kind of
iq
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 03:00:42PM -0700, Ralph Giles wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 08:39:33PM +0200, Ralph Meijer wrote:
[..]
Sure, you could use JEP-0050 for that, but that wasn't the complete
problem of the other Ralph. He wanted to be able to cancel a placed
request *and* still
2005/8/30, Rory [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
And of course I would also warmly welcome the SRV record for
_xmpp-client._tcp.gmail.com, becouse that would spare me that
explanation, making things just work.
Perhaps you understand now that there might be a little bit more
to win here than just saving
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 10:23:31AM +0200, Tomasz Sterna wrote:
2005/8/30, Rory [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
And of course I would also warmly welcome the SRV record for
_xmpp-client._tcp.gmail.com, becouse that would spare me that
explanation, making things just work.
Perhaps you understand now
I found that some of the IM clients were weak in managing the instant message
which stored on the client. They only provide very simple policy to store the
messages. My question is that did any IM client or third-party software provide
more politic methed to store and maintain the message
Federico Lucifredi a écrit :
Dear Alessandro,
DJ's is the best, without a doubt.
I can't compare (I didn't the two others), nevertheless is the DJ's one
really good. Even for a noob like me ;-)
___
jdev mailing list
jdev@jabber.org
Hello
I think it is evident from the preceding discussions that I
have made a mistake in posting to this list.
I apologize for any offense I may have caused to the
developers here, or indeed to google if they are in fact
listening in. Such was not my intention.
This will be last post to this
Rory wrote:
Hello
I think it is evident from the preceding discussions that I
have made a mistake in posting to this list.
I apologize for any offense I may have caused to the
developers here, or indeed to google if they are in fact
listening in. Such was not my intention.
This will be last
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 02:34:02PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Aw, don't take it personally, some folks on this list are a bit prickly. :-)
:-)
___
jdev mailing list
jdev@jabber.org
http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
I think you're looking for:
http://groups.google.com/group/google-talk-open
or
http://groups.google.com/group/Google_im
On 30/08/05, Rory [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello
I think it is evident from the preceding discussions that I
have made a mistake in posting to this list.
I apologize
Rory wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 02:34:02PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Aw, don't take it personally, some folks on this list are a bit prickly. :-)
:-)
Stpeter can be the master of understatements. I've been following the
discussion with quite a bit of amazement. It's amazing how
WebJabber has experiencing when connect to jabber.org, especially busy time. But
when I tried to connect jabber.org from different place (IP), it seems okay. My
question is that there is some limitation on jabber.org for binding multiple
connections from same IP?
Zhong Li
webjabber.net
Zhong Li wrote:
WebJabber has experiencing when connect to jabber.org, especially busy time. But
when I tried to connect jabber.org from different place (IP), it seems okay. My
question is that there is some limitation on jabber.org for binding multiple
connections from same IP?
The jabber.org
I am an develper on the Google Talk Service. I have
been following this list for a year now and will continue
to do so.
I'd like to let everybody know that Google will support open
server-to-server federation, This will not happen immediately.
We are still writing the code for server-to-server
On Tuesday 30 August 2005 10:08 pm, Gary Burd wrote:
I am an develper on the Google Talk Service. I have
been following this list for a year now and will continue
to do so.
Good, else we'd have been worried. ;-)
I'd like to let everybody know that Google will support open
server-to-server
Hi Developer community;
Does Jabber has protocol to support VoIP call set up?
Thank you
Shu (Steve) Chen
Techmate Corporation
12819 SE 38th St. PMB 254
Bellevue, WA 98006 USA
Tel:
(425) 818-0568
Cell: 425-785-9971
Fax: (425) 641-8908
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
18 matches
Mail list logo
