Of particular interest at the moment is how we should discover your STUN
TURN servers. Does the client have the servers hardcoded, or does it
get them sent to it during the web authentication? Would you consider
adding SRV records in the SIP style of _stun._udp.gmail.com etc for
making at least
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Scott Ludwig wrote:
Of particular interest at the moment is how we should discover your STUN
TURN servers. Does the client have the servers hardcoded, or does it
get them sent to it during the web authentication? Would you consider
adding SRV
Gary Burd wrote:
As long as GT doesn't change the allowable email addresses, you're safe.
You are not safe. Google is regulary adding new domains to Google Talk
as part of the Gmail for Domains beta test. See
https://www.google.com/hosted/Home for more info.
Right, I always knew that
On 4/6/06, Robert McQueen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even if we're not doing google:roster, then there are other places where
we need to know if the server has extra features (google:relay auth
token, off the record, mail notifications...)
Google does not encourage the use of these private
On 4/6/06, Gary Burd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please let us know which of the extensions you would like to see
documented and supported in a formal way.
Oops, forget to mention this. There is work in progress to document
the off the record extension as a JEP.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gary Burd wrote:
On 4/6/06, Gary Burd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please let us know which of the extensions you would like to see
documented and supported in a formal way.
Oops, forget to mention this. There is work in progress to document
the
Gary Burd wrote:
Please let us know which of the extensions you would like to see
documented and supported in a formal way.
Of particular interest at the moment is how we should discover your STUN
TURN servers. Does the client have the servers hardcoded, or does it
get them sent to it during
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert McQueen wrote:
Gary Burd wrote:
Please let us know which of the extensions you would like to see
documented and supported in a formal way.
Of particular interest at the moment is how we should discover your STUN
TURN servers. Does the
On 04 Apr 2006, at 21:50, Robert McQueen wrote:
can anyone think of a
better way to discover support for their extension?
Different things come to mind:
- Clients shouldn't really encourage non-standard behaviour, so i
would personally not support this myself.
- If you really want to
Remko Troncon wrote:
- If you really want to support Google Talk, you can get away with a
regexp match on the JID, and enable all these non-standard extensions.
No other server is using these anyway. As long as GT doesn't change the
allowable email addresses, you're safe.
I wonder how long
Remko Troncon wrote:
Different things come to mind:
- Clients shouldn't really encourage non-standard behaviour, so i would
personally not support this myself.
With my idealist hat on, yes, I agree - I hate the fact that I'm even
considering this. But for this particular project I'm working
On Wednesday 05 April 2006 18:24, Robert McQueen wrote:
In my client, I don't want to present a server-side Block List to the
user unless I know that I can actually block. If I've disco'd and found
iq:privacy, and implement it, I can offer this, but I'm not sure what to
do on Google.
Well,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Trejkaz wrote:
Remko Troncon wrote:
- If you really want to support Google Talk, you can get away with a
regexp match on the JID, and enable all these non-standard extensions.
No other server is using these anyway. As long as GT doesn't change
On 05 Apr 2006, at 10:48, Trejkaz wrote:
I'd say it would be a better use of time to petition
Google to implement these things properly, than to implement them
as sticky
tape and then find out the tape falls off when it's fixed properly.
It's true as long as there *is* a proper way to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Remko Troncon wrote:
we should make simple iq-based protocol for blocking and going
invisible, as a server-side profile of privacy lists.
Yes, that's probably a good idea. Could be done with JEP-0050 I guess.
Peter
- --
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber
As long as GT doesn't change the allowable email addresses, you're safe.
You are not safe. Google is regulary adding new domains to Google Talk
as part of the Gmail for Domains beta test. See
https://www.google.com/hosted/Home for more info.
apart from GT not advertizing its extension in
On Thursday 06 April 2006 02:11, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Remko Troncon wrote:
we should make simple iq-based protocol for blocking and going
invisible, as a server-side profile of privacy lists.
Yes, that's probably a good idea. Could be done with JEP-0050 I guess.
Would it be possible to
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
What is the point of hardcoding visible-to-from rule? AFAICS, that is no
different from the visible rule (since you send presence only to people
who have subscribed to you). But perhaps I'm missing something. :-)
This is true. I had only thrown that in as an example.
18 matches
Mail list logo
