Re: [Operators] Openfire 3.6.4 (jabber.iitsp.com) vs. jabber.org

2010-07-06 Thread Jesse Thompson
On 07/06/2010 10:24 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: On Tue Jul 6 15:53:11 2010, Jesse Thompson wrote: I haven't looked into prosody. ejabberd is the best option, that I am aware of, for hosting lots of virtual domains (although it would be nice if they added the ability to add domains on the fly witho

Re: [Operators] Openfire 3.6.4 (jabber.iitsp.com) vs. jabber.org

2010-07-06 Thread Dave Cridland
On Tue Jul 6 15:53:11 2010, Jesse Thompson wrote: I haven't looked into prosody. ejabberd is the best option, that I am aware of, for hosting lots of virtual domains (although it would be nice if they added the ability to add domains on the fly without requiring a restart of the server.)

Re: [Operators] Openfire 3.6.4 (jabber.iitsp.com) vs. jabber.org

2010-07-06 Thread Jesse Thompson
On 07/03/2010 04:14 PM, Matthew Wild wrote: I also had doubts about using a "scripting language" for such a big project. Suffice to say that over the past couple of years my doubts are well and truly gone:) In fact I find the definition of "scripting language" rather vague now. Yeah, "scriptin

Re: [Operators] Openfire 3.6.4 (jabber.iitsp.com) vs. jabber.org

2010-07-06 Thread Jesse Thompson
On 07/05/2010 08:06 AM, Nigel Kukard wrote: The Openfire guys might want to work on a fix, though, since it's quite useful to have server-side. Openfire hasn't seen much activity since it moved out of focus of Jive Software's business goals. The latest release is from May 1, 2009, and it cont

Re: [Operators] Openfire 3.6.4 (jabber.iitsp.com) vs. jabber.org

2010-07-05 Thread Nigel Kukard
>> The Openfire guys might want to work on a fix, though, since it's >> quite useful to have server-side. > > Openfire hasn't seen much activity since it moved out of focus of Jive > Software's business goals. The latest release is from May 1, 2009, and > it contains a major bug in the setup assis

Re: [Operators] Openfire 3.6.4 (jabber.iitsp.com) vs. jabber.org

2010-07-05 Thread Andreas Monitzer
On Jul 05, 2010, at 15:00, Dave Cridland wrote: The Openfire guys might want to work on a fix, though, since it's quite useful to have server-side. Openfire hasn't seen much activity since it moved out of focus of Jive Software's business goals. The latest release is from May 1, 2009, and

Re: [Operators] Openfire 3.6.4 (jabber.iitsp.com) vs. jabber.org

2010-07-05 Thread Dave Cridland
On Mon Jul 5 13:15:48 2010, Nigel Kukard wrote: How odd ... test message sent. Thanks. This looks like the old problem that Openfire isn't compatible with RFC 4507 and chokes on the extension being present - it's the "OP_NO_TICKET" issue in (many) clients and servers. We'll supress it f

Re: [Operators] Openfire 3.6.4 (jabber.iitsp.com) vs. jabber.org

2010-07-05 Thread Nigel Kukard
>>> If it was C, I would be hacking the code and adding debugging to see >>> where the connection is terminating ... etc. >> >> I'd be (secretly, of course) delighted if this were a reason to move >> from a competitor's product, but that's not the case here. Even if >> this server were written i

Re: [Operators] Openfire 3.6.4 (jabber.iitsp.com) vs. jabber.org

2010-07-05 Thread Dave Cridland
On Mon Jul 5 11:37:27 2010, Dave Cridland wrote: On Mon Jul 5 10:59:43 2010, Nigel Kukard wrote: If it was C, I would be hacking the code and adding debugging to see where the connection is terminating ... etc. I'd be (secretly, of course) delighted if this were a reason to move from a

Re: [Operators] Openfire 3.6.4 (jabber.iitsp.com) vs. jabber.org

2010-07-05 Thread Nigel Kukard
>> If it was C, I would be hacking the code and adding debugging to see >> where the connection is terminating ... etc. > > I'd be (secretly, of course) delighted if this were a reason to move > from a competitor's product, but that's not the case here. Even if > this server were written in C, wit

Re: [Operators] Openfire 3.6.4 (jabber.iitsp.com) vs. jabber.org

2010-07-05 Thread Dave Cridland
On Mon Jul 5 10:59:43 2010, Nigel Kukard wrote: If it was C, I would be hacking the code and adding debugging to see where the connection is terminating ... etc. I'd be (secretly, of course) delighted if this were a reason to move from a competitor's product, but that's not the case here. Ev

Re: [Operators] Openfire 3.6.4 (jabber.iitsp.com) vs. jabber.org

2010-07-05 Thread Nigel Kukard
>> [org.jivesoftware.openfire.net.SocketReadingMode.negotiateTLS(SocketReadingMode.java:77)] >> >> Error while negotiating TLS: >> org.jivesoftware.openfire.net.socketconnect...@130fdeb socket: >> Socket[addr=/174.142.114.101,port=50577,localport=5269] session: >> org.jivesoftware.openfire.session

Re: [Operators] Openfire 3.6.4 (jabber.iitsp.com) vs. jabber.org

2010-07-05 Thread Dave Cridland
On Sat Jul 3 15:52:28 2010, Nigel Kukard wrote: [org.jivesoftware.openfire.net.SocketReadingMode.negotiateTLS(SocketReadingMode.java:77)] Error while negotiating TLS: org.jivesoftware.openfire.net.socketconnect...@130fdeb socket: Socket[addr=/174.142.114.101,port=50577,localport=5269] session: o

Re: [Operators] Openfire 3.6.4 (jabber.iitsp.com) vs. jabber.org

2010-07-04 Thread Nigel Kukard
Hi there Matthew, >>> Prosody Server: http://prosody.im >>> >> Prosody looks pretty cool lua ... I don't REALLY like scripting >> languages, but at this point in time I'm close to trying anything >> really. Not sure I have any hair left after all the hair pulling I've >> been doing. >>

Re: [Operators] Openfire 3.6.4 (jabber.iitsp.com) vs. jabber.org

2010-07-03 Thread Matthew Wild
Hey Nigel, On 3 July 2010 17:33, Nigel Kukard wrote: > Hi there Arsimael, > >> Prosody Server: http://prosody.im > > Prosody looks pretty cool lua ... I don't REALLY like scripting > languages, but at this point in time I'm close to trying anything > really. Not sure I have any hair left af

Re: [Operators] Openfire 3.6.4 (jabber.iitsp.com) vs. jabber.org

2010-07-03 Thread Nigel Kukard
Hi there Arsimael, > I'm using prosody 0.7 and it was very easy do install and configure. > > My Server has a lot of transports (ICQ,MSN,Yahoo,myspace,facebook,AIM) > and I COULD add IRC, GG,QQ an many more. Its very stable and just > works great. Prosody is able to handle MUC and SSL. > Nice fe

Re: [Operators] Openfire 3.6.4 (jabber.iitsp.com) vs. jabber.org

2010-07-03 Thread Arsimael
Hello Nigel, I'm using prosody 0.7 and it was very easy do install and configure. My Server has a lot of transports (ICQ,MSN,Yahoo,myspace,facebook,AIM) and I COULD add IRC, GG,QQ an many more. Its very stable and just works great. Prosody is able to handle MUC and SSL. I tried openfire, but it

[Operators] Openfire 3.6.4 (jabber.iitsp.com) vs. jabber.org

2010-07-03 Thread Nigel Kukard
Anyone running openfire 3.6.4 having issues with some SSL failure when communicating with people on jabber.org? Here is the openfire logs: line 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53