On 14/08/14 01:54, Holger Weiß wrote:
> * Daniel Pocock [2014-08-13 21:00]:
>> On 12/08/14 14:59, Dave Cridland wrote:
Should that make regular XMPP work again or does the other person have
to do the same thing too perhaps?
>>> It may or may not. It is entirely unclear, Google provide no
* Kim Alvefur [2014-08-13 21:50]:
> On 2014-08-13 21:34, David Holl wrote:
> > I like the idea of the server-side kludge, never mind that it is ugly to
> > implement such a special case. But we can holy war some other time
> > about what's uglier Google's broken implementation, or the value in
>
* Daniel Pocock [2014-08-13 21:00]:
> On 12/08/14 14:59, Dave Cridland wrote:
> > > Should that make regular XMPP work again or does the other person have
> > > to do the same thing too perhaps?
> >
> > It may or may not. It is entirely unclear, Google provide no
> > documentation or advice that
On 8/13/14, 1:30 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote:
A cynical person could also make a counter-strike: display some warning
popup in the regular XMPP clients each time somebody tries to start a
new chat with a user @gmail.com and doesn't receive a response in 2
minutes. "Warning: the person you have trie
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 01:14:41AM +0400, Jack L. Frost wrote:
> Users will riot for a bit and then proceed to educate their friends
> about the fact that there are better jabber servers.
That's an incredibly naive, myopic attitude.
"better Jabber server" isn't the point. *communicating* with o
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 01:14:41AM +0400, Jack L. Frost wrote:
> Take a stand and solve the problem once and for all. Other solutions are ugly.
Another argument towards this is the fact that Google has shown us time and
again that they don't care about being a part of the federation. Why should we
> Are there any better ideas for dealing with this user "experience" when
> naively attempting to chat with a Google Hangouts user?
There is one[0]. Refusing s2s over unencrypted connections cuts off google's
xmpp as a consequence (they don't have s2s encryption at all). And I honestly
think that
hahaha! Bravo! I'll give it a spin...
On 8/13/14, 3:50 PM, Kim Alvefur wrote:
> On 2014-08-13 21:34, David Holl wrote:
>> I like the idea of the server-side kludge, never mind that it is ugly to
>> implement such a special case. But we can holy war some other time
>> about what's uglier Google
On 2014-08-13 21:34, David Holl wrote:
> I like the idea of the server-side kludge, never mind that it is ugly to
> implement such a special case. But we can holy war some other time
> about what's uglier Google's broken implementation, or the value in
> raising awareness of the issues at hand...
I like the idea of the server-side kludge, never mind that it is ugly to
implement such a special case. But we can holy war some other time
about what's uglier Google's broken implementation, or the value in
raising awareness of the issues at hand...
Server-side Prosody plugin, anyone? :-) [Hey
A cynical person could also make a counter-strike: display some warning
popup in the regular XMPP clients each time somebody tries to start a
new chat with a user @gmail.com and doesn't receive a response in 2
minutes. "Warning: the person you have tried to contact uses gmail.com.
It is possibl
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 09:00:07PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> A cynical person could also make a counter-strike: display some warning
> popup in the regular XMPP clients each time somebody tries to start a
> new chat with a user @gmail.com and doesn't receive a response in 2
> minutes. "Warning
On 12/08/14 14:59, Dave Cridland wrote:
>
> This really appears to undermine the credibility of XMPP if a big
> provider is allowing messages to silently disappear.
>
>
> Yes. A cynical person might suppose that by undermining a federated open
> standard, this would help draw people i
On 12 August 2014 12:22, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> Can anybody comment on the current status of interop between Google
> (gmail.com) users and the rest of the world?
>
The only people who can definitively comment are Google.
Personally, I have a Prosody server and various clients like Jitsi and I
On 12/08/14 13:27, Neil Stevens wrote:
> Existing Gmail users remain on XMPP unless they switch to Hangouts.
> Then they stop existing in XMPP.
That seems to be inconsistent though - they do still appear to exist in
XMPP, e.g. in my buddy list. They just don't receive my messages.
I just confirm
Existing Gmail users remain on XMPP unless they switch to Hangouts. Then they
stop existing in XMPP.
I *think* new Gmail users get Hangouts from the start but I'm not sure.
On Aug 12, 2014, at 7:22 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>
> Can anybody comment on the current status of interop between Go
Can anybody comment on the current status of interop between Google
(gmail.com) users and the rest of the world?
Personally, I have a Prosody server and various clients like Jitsi and I
understand they correctly implement XMPP.
I've noticed that gmail.com users appear in my buddy list but some
17 matches
Mail list logo
