On Jun 28, 2006, at 3:04 AM, Bruce Campbell wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 05:59:54 -0600
From: Joe Hildebrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Jabber software development list
To: Jabber software development list
Subject: Re: [jdev] XMPP Pin
ROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Jabber software development list
To: Jabber software development list
Subject: Re: [jdev] XMPP Ping/Keepalive: Recommended method ?
On Jun 27, 2006, at 4:09 AM, Bruce Campbell wrote:
Well, not really. You'll get a TCP ack back, which should be
enough to keep the light
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 05:59:54 -0600
From: Joe Hildebrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Jabber software development list
To: Jabber software development list
Subject: Re: [jdev] XMPP Ping/Keepalive: Recommended method ?
On Jun 27, 2006, at 4
On Jun 27, 2006, at 4:09 AM, Bruce Campbell wrote:
Well, not really. You'll get a TCP ack back, which should be
enough to keep the lights on.
Not if you are dealing with inspection-type firewalls which don't
really treat a TCP ACK as a data packet.
If firewalls did this, TCP would *break
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
On Jun 19, 2006, at 1:15 AM, Sergei Golovan wrote:
The problem is that this "ping" is not a ping at all because it only
sends data and does not expect reply.
Well, not really. You'll get a TCP ack back, which should be enough to keep
the lights on
On Jun 19, 2006, at 1:15 AM, Sergei Golovan wrote:
The problem is that this "ping" is not a ping at all because it only
sends data and does not expect reply.
Well, not really. You'll get a TCP ack back, which should be enough
to keep the lights on. Some servers can also be configured to se
s used today in a ping/pong fashion - however many newsgroups/blogs/newsfeeds do get delivered over mobile mail.That said, I am not a mobile email researcher - just an avid Blackberry user.- Original Message From: Dave Cridland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Top Posting and Mobiles (OT From Re:
On Fri Jun 23 01:47:38 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
p.s Answering below quoted text is similarly annoying for people
with mobile email clients where only the first X bytes are
retrieved by default ;-)
Be careful about making arguments like this. There's always the risk
that a bored mobile
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Even with an empty presence payload like ?
It means: I'm online with no status message (and not away/dnd/etc)
- --
Maciek A: It's against natural order of reading.
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Q: Why is
, June 22, 2006 5:48 PM
To: Jabber software development list
Subject: Re: [jdev] XMPP Ping/Keepalive: Recommended method ?
Even with an empty presence
payload like ?
p.s Answering below quoted text is similarly annoying for people
with mobile email clients where only the first X bytes
opment list Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 4:54:14 PMSubject: Re: [jdev] XMPP Ping/Keepalive: Recommended method ?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> Assuming (for legacy reasons), the only injection point available in> the code for this uni-directional
"keepalive" is a message or> presence p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Assuming (for legacy reasons), the only injection point available in
> the code for this uni-directional "keepalive" is a message or
> presence packet, how "bad" is it to send a to the server
> (vs. say a jabber:iq:version o
: Re: [jdev] XMPP Ping/Keepalive: Recommended method ?
Assuming (for legacy reasons),
the only injection point available in the code for this uni-directional
"keepalive" is a message or presence packet, how "bad" is
it to send a to the server (vs. say a
Assuming (for legacy reasons), the only injection point available in the code for this uni-directional "keepalive" is a message or presence packet, how "bad" is it to send a to the server (vs. say a jabber:iq:version or jabber:iq:time) ?Will most servers ignore this safely and will it be consider
On 6/19/06, Dave Cridland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon Jun 19 08:15:40 2006, Sergei Golovan wrote:
> So, some NATs and proxies still break connection if they don't see
> bidirectional flow.
>
Could you tell me which NATs do this? I'm unaware of any that handle
timeouts differently for unidir
On Mon Jun 19 08:15:40 2006, Sergei Golovan wrote:
On 6/19/06, Michal vorner Vaner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 10:47:19PM -0700,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Given that the protocol itself does not seem to have a
defined keep-alive
>element, what is the recommended w
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 11:15:40AM +0400, Sergei Golovan wrote:
> On 6/19/06, Michal vorner Vaner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 10:47:19PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >>Given that the protocol itself does not seem to have a defined
> >keep-alive
> >>elemen
On 6/19/06, Michal vorner Vaner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 10:47:19PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Given that the protocol itself does not seem to have a defined keep-alive
>element, what is the recommended way for a client to keep its connection
>alive to
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 10:47:19PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Given that the protocol itself does not seem to have a defined keep-alive
>element, what is the recommended way for a client to keep its connection
>alive to a XMPP server ?
Since XML allows any number of whitespace be
19 matches
Mail list logo
