I am writing my own jabber compatible IM system on
win32 but am havingproblems communicating with other jabber servers, it gets
almost the wholeway through the dialback process but at stage 8 (from the
draft docs) whenit sends the db:result valid nothing happens, it does not
validate the co
As a little project of mine I have written my own instant messaging system
which uses ideas from the different IM systems that I researched, after
seeing jabber I based my protocol on XML and a lot of the XML packet
structures are similar, but I do some things different, i.e. the addressing.
e.g.
- Original Message -
From: "David Sutton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Protocal Specifier on jabber addresses; creation of
JUPLs
> Hello,
>
> I can understand the idea which you are proposing, but it looks to m
Well we are working on a two way SMS system for an application at work, the
only way to get responses (two way) we have found is to get an SMS unit that
you plug into the computer, if anyone is interested on the exact device we
have ordered I can find out, I think it is made by Siemens.
Richard
Are you sure that it works tho, I setup SRV records in the form of
_jabber._tcp.mydomain.com and other jabber servers do not use that and
instead connect directly to mydomain.com on port 5269.
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursd
As it has not been released as far as I know (only
the 1.0 protocol is available, they are currently on 4 and the servers seem to
also support version 5) its likely to be on the computer of the .net
messenger deveolpers at redmond, and I doubt you would legally be able to get
hold of a copy
I see the only viable way to solve this AOL issue is to make jabber so good
that AIM/ICQ users will switch to it, once AOL sees that they are lossing
all of their users im sure they will start talking about and allowing
interoperability to try and keep users. Also all the recent AIM security
probl
> Also, a server admin should block all traffic coming from AOL to prevent
> AOL staff from setting up Jabber AIM-t accounts in order to get your
> transport's IP.
That also stops genuine AOL users using your server, and what is to stop
them from signing up to your AIM-t via another server, jabbe
> 3 - Remove pth for a single event system (temas)
Isnt removing threading going to cause serious problems with scalability
making people buy the commercial server if they want to support lots of
users or want to use a multiprocessor machine?
Any proper server uses threading does it not e.g. Apac
> Just to be pedantic: apache uses multiple *processes* (e.g. fork()) not
> multiple threads. The code has a number of extra hoops to jump through
> as a result.
Actually just to be pedantic the new updated version uses both.
Rich
___
jdev mailing li
Oh good, I just thought the threading itself was going to be completely
removed, im all for proper threading.
- Original Message -
From: "Jeremie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Jabberd 1.5 Development
> > > 3 - R
The main problems I see are that HTTP/FTP are far too bloated protocols, all
is really needed just like msn, icq, and aim is just a basic protocol for
sending the file p2p, thats what IM file transfers are, you dont need all
this storing of files for offline users and uploading to HTTP servers, if
fairly certain that most people getting a CS degree
> have to write one or the other at some point in their studies, so it's
> not like they're impossible to find.
>
> Julian
>
> On Mon, 2002-02-18 at 06:35, Richard Dobson wrote:
> > The main problems I see are that
fairly certain that most people getting a CS degree
> have to write one or the other at some point in their studies, so it's
> not like they're impossible to find.
>
> Julian
>
> On Mon, 2002-02-18 at 06:35, Richard Dobson wrote:
> > The main problems I see are that
It is not designed for just sending a single a file p2p to someone, it is
designed as a system of hosting a structured collection of files that is
left available for anyone to browse through, also, 500 lines ?? a simple
system such as i suggested could im sure be provided in a fraction of that
cod
Thats still much much more complex than writing simple socket streaming,
thats probably 3 hours (socket data streaming) vs 3 days maybe more (for a
simple HTTP server).
- Original Message -
From: "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 10:43 PM
> No ... I don't think you need 3 days to send some headers ... you just
have
> to preprend to all your outgoing connections "GET / HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n" and
to
> all incomming connections "HTTP/1.0 200 OK\r\n\r\n". I really can't see
why
> you need 3 days to implement that. - Oh, sure ... you have to
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 02:03:36PM -0000, Richard Dobson wrote:
> > > No ... I don't think you need 3 days to send some headers ... you just
> > have
> > > to preprend to all your outgoing connections "GET / HTTP/1.0\r\n\r\n"
and
> > to
> >
> > And this will work with existing Jabber clients.
Also on this point just because thats the way it was done by previous people
it does not mean we should just retrict ourselves to HTTP, it may not be
compatible with these until they were updated but the whole point of this
discussion is to end
It would be great if you could build the rest of the components so they can
be installed along with the JabberD in the installer, as it would allow our
company to shift over from using MSN messenger for internal IM to Jabber,
our network manager is useless and wouldnt have a clue using cygwin and
Im sure im right in saying that the transports are very deeply intergrated
with the server.
- Original Message -
From: "Rodrigo Borrego Bernabé" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Using transports alone
> I mean running
Well if you are using an AOL dialup connection to host a jabber server then
I think you have much greater problems to deal with anyway, also there is a
reason ISP's use such measures, so they can stop people hosting servers on
their connections when they shouldnt be in the first place, if you want
Well for one the new server puts in , thats the main
difference i can see.
- Original Message -
From: "migs paraz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 6:43 AM
Subject: [JDEV] SAX Parsing and server headers
> Hi,
> I'm using SAX with the Muse compo
Well what about creating a new x element for message which allows people to
define emoticon text replacements e.g.
This is a emoticon containing message :) (L) ;) :D
all then that has to be done is to define a standard set of icon codes, e.g.
Campe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
> Richard Dobson wrote:
> > Well what about creating a new x element for message which allows people
to
> > define emoticon text replace
Yep good idea, although I like the idea of sending along info about
emoticons that are actually used in a message so they can be turned on and
off incase (0) is defined as an emoticon (like in msn) but someone wants to
send a snippet of code and not have a bit converted to an emoticon.
> It could
> I thought about it a bit (hmm, actually a lot ;) ) and I started to like
> the idea. So to reduce the overhead the message could be sth. like:
>
>
> This is a emoticon containing message :) (L) ;) :D
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yep also I think it can be shortened by a few more characters like this
> As you all saw, my initial proposal was purely receiver-based (i.e.,
> the receiving program converted anything "interesting"-looking into
> an icon), but it looks to me like you're all trying to figure out some
> standard way of integrating non-text elements into messages :-(
>
> In that case,
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Parslow (PatRat)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Richard Dobson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 11:08 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
> It also allows the sender to determine the receivers
- Original Message -
From: "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
> Reply inline:
>
> - Dave
>
> People who are behind firewalls and proxies can upload their favorite
> emoticons to GeoCities, an
- Original Message -
From: "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
> Reply inline:
>
> - Dave
>
> People who are behind firewalls and proxies can upload their favorite
> emoticons to GeoCities, an
- Original Message -
From: "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
> LOL ... people tend to get way to concerned about privacy, IMHO :-(
> Anyway, the same thing I said about getting around
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Richard Dobson wrote:
>
> > Also hosting the emoticons on j.o servers
- Original Message -
From: "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
> > also there is no way
> > of stopping the sending person from sending them in the xml in the first
> > place,
> How about sendi
- Original Message -
From: "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
> > also those sort of devices can currently display .png or
> > .gif, only .wbmp, should these be not allowed to use emoticons? No
6 AM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
> Grrr ... if you want to use emoticons from a non-j.o place, simply use
> the URL of the other location instea of the URL on the j.o repository.
> (I thought I said that twice already.)
>
> - Dave
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTE
- Original Message -
From: "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
> > When sending the icons, via some method, to a remote client. Who should
> > be responsible for checking that the images don't
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
> > > Okay, it's a 2 vs. 1 here ... how about if one of you echoes _my_
> > > messages instead of the other's? That should even things
- Original Message -
From: "Julian Fitzell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
> > Thats much better than a url to an external source, but there is still
the
> > problem of the file format here, it s
To my understanding there are no standard or even proposed protocols for
using voice chat with jabber.
- Original Message -
From: "Deddy Novrandianto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jdev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 2:06 AM
Subject: [JDEV] Jabber voice chat
> does jabb
- Original Message -
From: "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 9:47 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
> > any means it is part of the wap standards, I said all of this because
your
> I happen to hate the WAP standards, but that's nei
- Original Message -
From: "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 11:53 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
> > Also why mention web browsers, jabber is not a web browser ???
> Jabber clients that download images off the 'net had better b
he route that they would have a
problem with the ico attribute being star then it could be defined as a
number if really necessary (although i think that bit could be fine as
star).
Rich
> - Dave
>
>
> Richard Dobson wrote:
> >
> > But what if a client wants to use its ow
- Original Message -
From: "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
> Modifying a processor to interpret URNs instead of URLs is no biggie.
> Besides, we can always just use relative URLs, and sc
ents in the xhtml segment???
>
> - Dave
>
>
> Richard Dobson wrote:
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Julian Fitzell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 3:23 PM
>
- Original Message -
From: "Tijl Houtbeckers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 1:17 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
> And I'd love having a simple X
> element telling that the current message should not be parsed for
emoticons..
Yes why dont we create one for each idea so we can produce a proper document
fully outlining why we think it is a good way to do it, with
reasons/applications for it/examples etc so everyone can review it in its
entirety and we can maybe have a vote on them to see which everyone thinks
is best, an
This is virtually the same thing that I have already suggested, I am
preparing to write up a document on it, would you like to help ?
- Original Message -
From: "Sami Haahtinen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emotico
- Original Message -
From: "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 3:22 AM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Emoticons: guidelines
> I don't think the Jabber protocol itself should define that "standard"
> set. Rather, we should let individual Web repositori
On 24/4/02 8:17 pm, "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It may be silly for a Jabber client to be a Web browser, but the
> standard OOB method in Jabber is HTTP, so any Jabber client that wants
> to support file transfer already is a Web browser. It may be silly,
> but it's true ;-)
Urm no, jus
On 24/4/02 9:39 pm, "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm ... so we can have , and src="beer"> ... interesting idea. . .
>
> Yeah, I think that will keep the implementation reasonably clean, while making
> people who want to treat emoticons differently happy.
That is much better, although it
I found disabling zero auth fixed the wierd account problems on my win2k
server. Also I may be able to give you access to my system (via terminal
services, if you have a static ip) after I get a new hard disc for it (its
running very low on space).
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Muldo
Why dont you just use the win32 version of mysql ???
- Original Message -
From: "QUINTABà Fausto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 1:15 PM
Subject: [JDEV] Problems compiling MySQL under Cygwin
> Hi,
>
> did anyone has succeeded in compiling MySQL u
I think that allowing file transfers of very small files in-band would be
cool, but anything over 10k or so should be sent out of band by some other
means, allowing it in band at all is also a big problem because of the
massive potential for abuse, in ways like DOS attacks against individual
clien
n get a connection to the server,
then
> the problem dissipates.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Dobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 06 June 2002 09:35
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JDEV] File transfers
>
>
> I think that allowing file tran
Sure its a big problem, but it is a client problem, the current unoffical
standard or sending files is via the HTTP protocol, if a client with file
transfer does not work correctly email the author and tell them so, thats
the only way things are going to get fixed.
Richard
- Original Message
'm trying
to
> do is get something done which could prevent possible problems later on.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Dobson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 06 June 2002 12:11
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [JDEV] File transfers
>
>
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 2:58 PM
Subject: [JDEV] (more) File transfers
> And alternative, would be to create a simple(-ish) PASS type component
that
> would run as a service under WinNT/2000/XP or
- Original Message -
From: "Michael F Lin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] File transfers
> Richard, by your logic, every ISP and backbone provider over which
> copyrighted materials are transferred are liable, since "t
- Original Message -
From: "Michael F Lin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] File transfers
> Richard, by your logic, every ISP and backbone provider over which
> copyrighted materials are transferred are liable, since "t
Exactly because if you tried the email server and client would probably
crash, or grind to a halt and lock up.
But if jabber is transfering the files out of band I dont see the comparison
that is trying to be made to email attachments??, I would think Jabber
operating in this manor would be perfe
Yup thats fine for the signalling of the supported file transfer methods,
but how is that going to help actually negotiating the actual p2p transfer,
ip address, port, size of file, name of file etc etc.
- Original Message -
From: "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: W
It was a virus, my email server's virus scanner filtered it out, here my
servers report:
The following message had attachment(s) which contained the viruses:
>From : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject : [JDEV] Per SSL 2.0, SSL 3.0, TLS 1.0, PCT 1.0.
Date : Wed, 3
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Per SSL 2.0, SSL 3.0, TLS 1.0, PCT 1.0.
> What's Exploit.IFrame.FileDownload, some new breed of viruses for IE?
>
> - Dave
>
>
> Richard Dobson wrote:
> >
> >
Why not just get people to use SOCKS5 ?? or similar instead of trying to
reinvent the wheel as it were. If on a corporate LAN and there is a firewall
with no SOCKS server then people probably shouldnt really be trying to
bypass the company firewall anyway. If not then they need to pester the
netwo
their firewalls just so they can
> transfer files in Jabber; let them use a server-based solution instead.
>
> - Dave
>
> BTW - Due to my bad luck at avoiding running over my quota for daily
> messages when answering your emails, I don't plan to reply to any more
> mess
its use).
>
> - Dave
>
> Hmm ... so much for my plan not to reply :-(
>
>
> Richard Dobson wrote:
> >
> > Yes but if a SOCKS server will not be setup and it is because of network
> > security etc then you shouldnt really be trying any method of breaching
the
> &
Hi,
My understanding is that a 302 redirect is supposed to be for telling the
client to re-connect to a specified server, for use in server farm or
similar.
E.g. as a response to an authentication the server may send:
jabber2.server.com:5269
I dont think your use of 302 is correct, maybe you
bly appropriate.
>
> --
> Dr. Klaus H. Wolf
> bluehands GmbH & Co.mmunication KG
> http://www.bluehands.de/people/hw
> +49 (0721) 16108 75
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> > Richard Dobson
ngine level. It would be handled by lower layers of a Jabber
> protocol processor.
>
> --
> Dr. Klaus H. Wolf
> bluehands GmbH & Co.mmunication KG
> http://www.bluehands.de/people/hw
> +49 (0721) 16108 75
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mai
Hi Mark,
Message is not really appropriate for what you want to use it for, IQ is the
place you should be putting your extensions, in messages you can only add x
elements into the message and you certainly shouldnt be defining new message
types.
Richard
- Original Message -
From: "Mark
[JDEV] Custom messages/extensions
> Richard Dobson wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > Message is not really appropriate for what you want to use it for, IQ
> > is the place you should be putting your extensions, in messages you
> > can only add x elements into the message and y
Thats rubbish, being a Lotus focused website most of the companies they
surveyed were probably all Lotus Notes users already so of course they are
going to choose Sametime, just as Microsoft Exchange users are most likely
to go with Exchange IM. In my experience with the people from all over the
w
ther IM system in this
world?
>
> Having recently evaluated enterprise IM solutions I can tell you that
> SameTime is a very good solution and sets the bar very high. I find it
hard
> to believe a Lotus shop would prefer MSN over SameTime.
>
> Larry
>
> Richard Dobson said:
>
I think that is a remote possiblity and even if it does it is the sign of a
badly programmed client and not a fault with the protocol.
Richard
- Original Message -
From: "Kriggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 4:56 AM
Subject: Re: [JDEV] New htm
No, if you want to track responses to messages you use the id attribute of
the message you send out.
- Original Message -
From: "Duncan Hoyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 1:43 PM
Subject: [JDEV] message ordering
>
> Hi
>
> If my bot sends
76 matches
Mail list logo
