Hello, everyone:
I am writting a jabber web client by jsjac0.5 as no other JavaScript
library I can found.
It works well, but I fell across one problem with the jsjac. When the
Jabber Server normally closed , the jsjac code can't catch the error.
Is anyone have dealed with this problem, please
Hi all-
I'm new to the list - I hope I'm not breaking any etiquette rules by
sending this; I noticed some other similar postings in the archives.
I work at a startup which is in the process of deploying jabber as a
service for our customers (as part of a broader application). We've
decided to bri
On Wednesday 01 March 2006 15:49, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Yes, CAcert is great and I've been working with them to get support for
> id-on-xmppAddr into their certs. But that doesn't necessarily make it
> easier for people who are hosting a *lot* of XMPP domains to support TLS.
SSL/TLS is suppos
> Well, but we want people to use TLS. If it's too difficult, then we'll
> have a less secure network. And that seems like a Bad Thing even if
it's
> not our fault.
DNS is a much bigger hurdle to XMPP virtual hosting and adoption than
certificates. People are already used to installing/purchasing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Trejkaz wrote:
> Gary Burd wrote:
>> A couple of snips from the conversation:
>>
>>> For hosting providers it's usually an up-sell to your
>>> customers to add security
>>
>>> because it's each domain owner's responsibility to
>>> manage their own cert
Gary Burd wrote:
A couple of snips from the conversation:
For hosting providers it's usually an up-sell to your
customers to add security
because it's each domain owner's responsibility to
manage their own certificate.
Extra cost and responsiblity can impede XMPP adoption.
Look, if peopl
A couple of snips from the conversation:
> For hosting providers it's usually an up-sell to your
> customers to add security
> because it's each domain owner's responsibility to
> manage their own certificate.
Extra cost and responsiblity can impede XMPP adoption.
On 3/1/06, Norman Rasmussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just like HTTPS, each hostname/certificate has to have it's own IP
> address - this is so that we can tell which certificate to present
> based on the IP the client has just connected to.
In XMPP, TLS is negotatied after the client sends the
On Thursday 02 March 2006 06:36, Norman Rasmussen wrote:
> > This can be problematic for virtual hosting. Consider the following
> > scenario:
> >
> > - - shakespeare.lit runs an XMPP server.
> >
> > - - shakespeare.lit hosts XMPP services for denmark.lit, montague.lit,
> > capulet.lit, etc.
> >
>
On Thursday 02 March 2006 05:59, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Let's say you are DreamHost, which has offered jabber services for years
> now. You want to offer secure connections. But you host 50,000+ domains.
> Are you going to have a separate certificate for each of those domains?
Yes, because it'
On Thursday 02 March 2006 06:38, Hal Rottenberg wrote:
> On 3/1/06, Hal Rottenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes, but even so the "from" header isn't called "SMTP-ID", it's called
> > "from".
> >
> > +1 for the more human-friendly Jabber-ID
>
> Almost forgot to note that "from" is also not in
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 11:42:53AM -0700, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
> There are two possibilities I can see.
>
> 1. Every time shakespeare.lit adds a new virtual host, it needs to
> generate a new certificate. This is a real pain because of how
> certificates are usually generated (e.g., now Wil
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hal Rottenberg wrote:
> On 3/1/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Another +1 to XMPP-ID.
>>
>> 1. The protocol standard is XMPP (and not Jabber) - all our efforts should
>> be behind the "XMPP" bandwagon.
>
> Yes, but even so the "fro
As I understand it, the way dial-back works, you can make multiple
's2s' connections via a single dial-back session. IIRC, you just send
the dial-back auth token down the existing connection and it adds the
new server as a valid endpoint.
With swapping to certs (and I assume SASL external?) does
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
> 2. Clients open TCP connections to shakespeare.lit (rather than
> denmark.lit etc.) but specify the desired virtual hostname in the 'to'
> address of the stream header, then check the certificate presented by
> the server as either 'shakespeare.lit'
> +1 for the more human-friendly Jabber-ID
count me +1 for Jabber-ID too.
--
- Norman Rasmussen
- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Home page: http://norman.rasmussen.co.za/
On 3/1/06, JD Conley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We do this on the server side with a separate cert for each domain --
> even conference, users, and other sub-domains used in s2s. Some client
> software packages present a warning when certificates aren't correct
> (domain mismatch, etc) but many d
On 3/1/06, Hal Rottenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, but even so the "from" header isn't called "SMTP-ID", it's called "from".
>
> +1 for the more human-friendly Jabber-ID
Almost forgot to note that "from" is also not in URI format.
--
Psi webmaster (http://psi-im.org)
im:[EMAIL PROTECTED
> This can be problematic for virtual hosting. Consider the following
> scenario:
>
> - - shakespeare.lit runs an XMPP server.
>
> - - shakespeare.lit hosts XMPP services for denmark.lit, montague.lit,
> capulet.lit, etc.
>
> There are two possibilities I can see.
Don't forget option #3:
Just lik
On 3/1/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another +1 to XMPP-ID.
>
> 1. The protocol standard is XMPP (and not Jabber) - all our efforts should
> be behind the "XMPP" bandwagon.
Yes, but even so the "from" header isn't called "SMTP-ID", it's called "from".
+1 for the more human-fr
On 3/1/06, Jonathan Siegle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I'm all for each domain having their own certificate. Also the
> revocation list might be annoying if you have all 50k domains in one
> cert and you have to add one domain one day and delete a domain the next
> day...
I'm with these guys.
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 1. The protocol standard is XMPP (and not Jabber)
However the term that RFC 3920 uses for an XMPP address is "Jabber
Identifier or JID".
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/
FISHER: CYCLONIC 5 TO 7. SNOW SHOWERS. GOOD OCCASI
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Another +1 to XMPP-ID.
> 2. There is atleast one commercial vendor with Jabber in their name.
> There are also popular opensource servers with jabber in their name. In
> that sense, jabber-id creates more confusion about pro
Peter Saint-Andre said the following on 3/1/06 1:59 PM:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
JD Conley wrote:
address. Naturally we'll need to clarify this in rfc3920bis, but my
question now is: how do existing clients and servers handle this?
We do this on the server side with a sepa
> JD Conley wrote:
> >> address. Naturally we'll need to clarify this in rfc3920bis, but my
> >> question now is: how do existing clients and servers handle this?
> >
> > We do this on the server side with a separate cert for each domain
--
> > even conference, users, and other sub-domains used in
Another +1 to XMPP-ID. 1. The protocol standard is XMPP (and not Jabber) - all our efforts should be behind the "XMPP" bandwagon.2. There is atleast one commercial vendor with Jabber in their name. There are also popular opensource servers with jabber in their name. In that sense, jabber-id creates
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesus Cea wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> Are you saying +1 to his question or +1 to XMPP-ID? :-)
>
> To "XMPP-ID".
>
>>> I see several reasons for Jabber-ID:
>
> Good enough. Point taken.
>
> May I suggest to document these reasons in the pa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Are you saying +1 to his question or +1 to XMPP-ID? :-)
To "XMPP-ID".
> I see several reasons for Jabber-ID:
Good enough. Point taken.
May I suggest to document these reasons in the page?. I suppose it could
be a FAQ, som
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
JD Conley wrote:
>> address. Naturally we'll need to clarify this in rfc3920bis, but my
>> question now is: how do existing clients and servers handle this?
>
> We do this on the server side with a separate cert for each domain --
> even conference, u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesus Cea wrote:
> Robert B Quattlebaum, Jr. wrote:
>>> Any particular reason why we are using "Jabber-ID" instead of "XMPP-ID"?
>
> +1
Are you saying +1 to his question or +1 to XMPP-ID? :-)
I see several reasons for Jabber-ID:
1. Jabber-ID is his
> address. Naturally we'll need to clarify this in rfc3920bis, but my
> question now is: how do existing clients and servers handle this?
We do this on the server side with a separate cert for each domain --
even conference, users, and other sub-domains used in s2s. Some client
software packages p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
RFC 3920 (Section 5.1, point 8) specifies that certificates must be
checked against the hostname provided by the initiating entity (e.g., a
client). Specifically:
8. Certificates MUST be checked against the hostname as provided by
the initiatin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert B Quattlebaum, Jr. wrote:
> Any particular reason why we are using "Jabber-ID" instead of "XMPP-ID"?
+1
- --
Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.argo.es/~jcea/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/
Hi Vinod,
Haven't managed to find MiniClient - a link would be helpful.
The MiniClient is only a sample client for our agsXMPP library. You can
download it here:
http://www.ag-software.de/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=73&Itemid=104
Or ping me by jabber or email.
Alex
34 matches
Mail list logo
