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
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 20:51, 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
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, 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
11 matches
Mail list logo
