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 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
-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 than
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: 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 list
On 22 May 2013 16:02, Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im 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
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
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
22 maj 2013 kl. 18:40 skrev Peter Saint-Andre stpe...@stpeter.im:
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
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Kim Alvefur z...@zash.se 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.
On 2013-05-22 19:54, Dave Cridland wrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Kim Alvefur z...@zash.se 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
-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 established
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
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 (2005-2013) but XMPP
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
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...
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 -
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 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
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 that
-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 gone.
21 matches
Mail list logo
