And Matthew Wild spoke on 04/28/2011 06:19 AM, saying:
On 28 April 2011 14:13, Yann Leboulanger aste...@lagaule.org wrote:
Le 28/04/2011 10:31, Dave Cridland a écrit :
Or there's XEP-0191.
What prevents people using that? I know you can't do invisibility
through it, but there's always
On 2010-10-06 07:27, Matthew Wild wrote:
Personally I think having 100 mark only non-anonymous makes most
sense.
+1 to everything Matthew said.
~Paul
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 2010-06-29 23:48, Matthew Wild wrote:
On 30 June 2010 06:13, Paul Aurich p...@darkrain42.org wrote:
While discussing XEP-0186 (Invisible Command) in
pros...@conference.prosody.im, I noticed that the specification doesn't
actually mention whether or not a server is supposed to generate any
On 2010-06-30 08:16, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Invisibility is evil.
I'd say 'broken', but poe-tay-toe, poe-tah-toe. :)
On 6/29/10 11:13 PM, Paul Aurich wrote:
While discussing XEP-0186 (Invisible Command) in
pros...@conference.prosody.im, I noticed that the specification doesn't
actually
A few comments about hash algorithms (basing off my reading the Jingle
FT spec [0] just now and a discussion the Pidgin devs had a few months
ago, which I don't think was brought up in the XMPP community, though I
might have missed it).
1) Are there canonical text representations of hash
While discussing XEP-0186 (Invisible Command) in
pros...@conference.prosody.im, I noticed that the specification doesn't
actually mention whether or not a server is supposed to generate any
sort of presence probes.
Waqas suggested that based on historical discussions, most people think
the server
On 2010-06-25 17:04, Bruce Campbell wrote:
I'm actually wondering whether this replay every 5 minutes is from
gtalk-the-service or gtalk-the-embedded-in-gmail-web-interface-client.
It's gtalk-the-service; I've observed the behavior coming from people
connected via arbitrary XMPP clients, not to
http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0231.html#format indicates that the
'type' attribute is REQUIRED on the data/ element, as does the XML
schema section, but in the examples, it's only included on the returned
data (which is sensible, a requesting client cannot know what the data
actually is).
My
Currently, per http://xmpp.org/registrar/disco-categories.html, 'irc' is
not a valid type for a gateway, only for a conference.
As best as I can tell, this minor distinction would seem to imply that
an IRC component can only proxy MUCs, but not 1:1 chats (except via a
room, but that breaks if I,
And Jiří Zárevúcký spoke on 04/23/2009 11:02 AM, saying:
I don't think it's ridiculous. I guards against accidental leaking of
presence.
You can leak for example by requesting users client's version or
service discovery information. I can imagine very little ordinary
users realize it.
You
10 matches
Mail list logo
