Am 22.05.13 21:11, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
>> Well, xmpp has moved alot since 2005. caps, pubsub, pep, carbons,
>> s2s-tls, compression, jingle... gtalk hasn't. So breaking up was a
>> reasonable thing to do.
>
> There's a song in there somewhere. ;-)
"50 ways to leave your lover"? ;-)
On 5/22/2013 10:02 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/22/13 8:52 AM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
Google failed to note the correlation of the drop in federated
XMPP connections with the fact that Google Apps (which internally
federates its hosted domains)
On 5/22/13 1:09 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote:
> Am 22.05.2013 20:30, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
>>> So the protocol isn't as rich as they want... guess they haven't
>>> understood the "x" part in xmpp.
>>
>> Well, I see no reason for us to act the jilted lover. :-)
>> We had an on-and-off affair (2005-
Am 22.05.2013 20:30, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
So the protocol isn't as rich as they want... guess they haven't
understood the "x" part in xmpp.
Well, I see no reason for us to act the jilted lover. :-)
We had an on-and-off affair (2005-2013) but XMPP predated Google Talk and now we
start the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/22/13 12:27 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote:
> Am 22.05.2013 18:40, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
>> I think it was a bit over-the-top for Chee Chew to claim that
>> the "majority" of the server-to-server connectivity to the Google
>> Talk service was estab
Am 22.05.2013 18:40, schrieb Peter Saint-Andre:
I think it was a bit over-the-top for Chee Chew to claim that the
"majority" of the server-to-server connectivity to the Google Talk
service was established by "organizations or individuals looking to
bombard Google Talk users with chat spam".
htt
On 2013-05-22 19:54, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Kim Alvefur wrote:
>
>> On 2013-05-22 18:22, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>>> PS: I am wondering whether the claimed chat spam problems mentioned in
>> the press articles are actually true?
>>
>> It matches what was said bef
Google is using XMPP in another way as well. Their new gcm service for
android apps uses XMPP behind the scenes. Although not fully. Basically
they use it to establish a persistent connection then wrap json in their
own gcm tag.
On May 22, 2013 12:54 PM, "Dave Cridland" wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, May
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Kim Alvefur wrote:
> On 2013-05-22 18:22, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> > PS: I am wondering whether the claimed chat spam problems mentioned in
> the press articles are actually true?
>
> It matches what was said before, search this list for "spammy invites".
>
>
I'
22 maj 2013 kl. 18:40 skrev Peter Saint-Andre :
> In any case, I say let's continue to focus on improving XMPP. When
> people get sick of all these silos again, as I expect they will, we'll
> be ready.
In the Stockholm Internet Forum today, it was highlighted that almost
all social media today o
On 05/22/2013 04:47 PM, michael p wrote:
I dont think it matters if they were true or not- Google and every other walled
garden uses spam as an excuse, and a poor excuse at that. Anybody can cut down
on spam by reducing access- real programmers/engineers/admins accept the
challenge of providin
I dont think it matters if they were true or not- Google and every other walled
garden uses spam as an excuse, and a poor excuse at that. Anybody can cut down
on spam by reducing access- real programmers/engineers/admins accept the
challenge of providing quality, open systems. This whole move sa
On 22 May 2013 16:02, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On the other hand, not needing to interoperate with Google Talk might
> free us to more aggressively work on network security improvements. I
> say let's take this as an opportunity rather than a disappointment.
Agreed. We're already preparing to u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/22/13 10:32 AM, Kim Alvefur wrote:
> On 2013-05-22 18:22, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>> PS: I am wondering whether the claimed chat spam problems
>> mentioned in the press articles are actually true?
>
> It matches what was said before, search this
On 2013-05-22 18:22, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> PS: I am wondering whether the claimed chat spam problems mentioned in the
> press articles are actually true?
It matches what was said before, search this list for "spammy invites".
--
Kim
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On May 22, 2013, at 6:02 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On the other hand, not needing to interoperate with Google Talk might
> free us to more aggressively work on network security improvements. I
> say let's take this as an opportunity rather tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/22/13 9:15 AM, Philipp Hancke wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2013, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On the other hand, not needing to interoperate with Google Talk
>> might free us to more aggressively work on network security
>> improvements. I say let's tak
On Wed, 22 May 2013, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On the other hand, not needing to interoperate with Google Talk might
free us to more aggressively work on network security improvements. I
say let's take this as an opportunity rather than a disappointment.
+1. I wonder what the correlation between
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/22/13 8:52 AM, Jesse Thompson wrote:
> Google failed to note the correlation of the drop in federated
> XMPP connections with the fact that Google Apps (which internally
> federates its hosted domains) and Office 365 (which doesn't support
> XMPP
Google failed to note the correlation of the drop in federated XMPP
connections with the fact that Google Apps (which internally federates
its hosted domains) and Office 365 (which doesn't support XMPP
federation) are gobbling up the market as organizations move to the cloud.
Oh well ... it al
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Kim Alvefur wrote:
> Welcome back to the 90's people!
>
Does that mean I get to push ACAP again?
According to my experience, S2S (and x...@gmail.com at all) is still
working right now. I'm able to send messages from different servers to
acco...@gmail.com. I also may connect to my gmail-account using any xmpp
client. I just not use new Hangouts client and everything is ok.
May be you have to c
On 2013-05-20 21:41, Simone Marzona wrote:
> Battlestar Galactica - Intro:
>
> "...They look and feel human,
> some are programmed to think they are human
> there are many copies...
> ...and they have a plan."
This feels more appropriate:
> "All this has happened before. All this will happen aga
On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 13:29 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Their party, yes. That doesn't mean we need to stop having fun with
> open technologies. ;-)
"Vangelo fratello!" (cit.)
by
--
Simone Marzona
Linux registered user number: 509183
PGP key ID: 1024D/36F88CC3
Battlestar Galactica - I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/20/13 1:24 PM, Simone Marzona wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-05-16 at 12:52 -0300, Sebastián Odena wrote:
>> Does somebody have any news about google abandoning XMPP
>> protocol?
>>
>
> mm...
>
> I think that the party is quite over...
Their party, yes
On Thu, 2013-05-16 at 12:52 -0300, Sebastián Odena wrote:
> Does somebody have any news about google abandoning XMPP protocol?
>
mm...
I think that the party is quite over...
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/05/hands-on-with-hangouts-googles-new-text-and-video-chat-architectu
My XMPP client can't connect with Google.
Forget about it, they are stopping S2S to get something similar to
WhatsApp. I don't know if this could be a temporaly situation, but we can
give some days to Google and we'll see.
*Javier R.*
Pixelian España
http://www.pixelian.org
2013/5/20 David Mo
As of today my client can't connect anymore (though I can't rule out
that's only a temporary situation).
Sad :-(
~David
On 2013-05-19 21:17, Peter Kieser wrote:
I can no longer send or receive messages to people that have updated
to Google Hangouts. It shows them as being online, and messages
Forget about Google. It is a closed network now. You shall implement
different alternatives :)
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Peter Kieser wrote:
> I can no longer send or receive messages to people that have updated to
> Google Hangouts. It shows them as being online, and messages are
> "su
I can no longer send or receive messages to people that have updated to
Google Hangouts. It shows them as being online, and messages are
"successfully" sent but they are not received by either party.
-Peter
On 2013-05-16 9:12 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
The best information I've been given is tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/16/13 10:23 AM, Jonas Wielicki wrote:
>> On the plus side, this means there's no reason not to require TLS
>> now.
>
> On the minus side, one of the most convincing arguments for peering
> to people using XMPP (“you're already using it”) is kinda
> On the plus side, this means there's no reason not to require TLS now.
On the minus side, one of the most convincing arguments for peering to
people using XMPP (“you're already using it”) is kinda gone.
Seems to fit the pattern of them shutting down interconnecting services.
Jonas.
The best information I've been given is that Google are stopping S2S
entirely, and C2S will be a legacy interface to 1:1 text chat only.
On the plus side, this means there's no reason not to require TLS now.
Dave.
Does somebody have any news about google abandoning XMPP protocol?
34 matches
Mail list logo
