Logs for jdev
[00:03:48] * MattJ left the chat.
[00:51:10] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.
[01:22:34] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.
[01:23:19] * Florob left the chat.
[01:35:04] <Zash> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-18#section-13.7.2.1
[01:35:21] <Zash> "proviso"
[01:36:14] <Zash> Oh, that's a word? nm then
[02:12:22] * Zash left the chat.
[02:34:15] * abhinavsingh joined the chat.
[02:45:57] * abhinavsingh left the chat.
[03:07:02] * abhinavsingh joined the chat.
[03:20:27] * abhinavsingh left the chat.
[05:04:32] * Jason Fischl joined the chat.
[05:04:33] * Jason Fischl left the chat.
[05:59:33] * nabatt joined the chat.
[06:20:43] * abhinavsingh joined the chat.
[06:54:59] * Treebilou joined the chat.
[06:59:10] * mlundblad_laptop joined the chat.
[07:02:29] * teo1 left the chat.
[07:02:31] * teo1 joined the chat.
[07:06:28] * jonas joined the chat.
[07:21:36] * rizinbox\40jabber.org joined the chat.
[07:33:59] * rizinbox\40jabber.org left the chat.
[07:39:01] * jonas left the chat.
[08:00:11] * ermine joined the chat.
[08:00:39] * jonas joined the chat.
[08:05:28] * Ludovic joined the chat.
[08:27:25] * Kev left the chat.
[08:27:45] * Kev joined the chat.
[08:28:26] * Asterix joined the chat.
[08:29:43] * smoku joined the chat.
[08:34:49] * Tobias joined the chat.
[08:40:30] * abhinavsingh left the chat.
[08:42:25] * abhinavsingh joined the chat.
[08:46:18] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.
[08:47:10] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.
[08:47:20] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.
[08:49:00] * abhinavsingh left the chat.
[09:02:58] * alfeberlin left the chat.
[09:15:14] * petermount joined the chat.
[09:21:55] * deryni left the chat.
[09:24:19] * deryni joined the chat.
[09:57:03] * MattJ joined the chat.
[10:08:49] * Tobias left the chat.
[10:10:43] * Tobias joined the chat.
[10:26:59] * Alex joined the chat.
[10:42:50] * MattJ left the chat.
[10:51:19] * Tobias left the chat.
[10:51:45] * bear joined the chat.
[10:58:20] * Ludovic left the chat.
[11:11:10] * Zash joined the chat.
[11:20:37] * waqas joined the chat.
[11:36:01] * MattJ joined the chat.
[12:16:01] * Treebilou left the chat.
[12:24:14] * waqas left the chat.
[12:34:22] * nabatt left the chat.
[12:37:12] * abhinavsingh joined the chat.
[12:48:00] * Michael McCarthy joined the chat.
[12:48:00] * Michael McCarthy left the chat.
[12:49:36] * Michael McCarthy joined the chat.
[12:49:54] <Michael McCarthy> does anyone know if you can use privacy lists to join a room but invisibly?
[12:50:35] <Kev> You cannot join a room invisibly in standard implementations.
[12:54:50] <Michael McCarthy> thanks kev
[12:55:07] <Michael McCarthy> so privacy lists are only per person, roster or subscription type then
[12:55:29] <Kev> Privacy lists are per-JID.
[12:55:57] <Kev> You could use a privacy list to stop you sending presence to a MUC JID, but that just means you can't send the 'join' presence
to the MUC either.
[12:55:59] <Michael McCarthy> but a room address is technically a JID right?
[12:56:05] <Michael McCarthy> ah
[12:56:11] <Michael McCarthy> that makes perfect sense, thanks
[12:59:39] * Zash left the chat.
[12:59:39] * Michael McCarthy left the chat.
[13:04:35] * Michael McCarthy joined the chat.
[13:06:55] <MattJ> To be invisible you would need to be able to join, but tell the MUC server not let anyone else know you joined
[13:07:24] <MattJ> whereas privacy lists are applied by your home server, and as Kev says, would block communication between you and the MUC,
not the MUC and the other users in the MUC
[13:07:53] * guest11 joined the chat.
[13:07:54] <dwd> MattJ, Right. MUC would need the bastard offspring of '45 and '186.
[13:08:07] <guest11> hi
[13:08:08] <guest11> hi
[13:08:13] <guest11> hi peopleeeeee hi matt
[13:08:15] <guest11> how are you
[13:08:21] <guest11> hi kev
[13:08:35] <guest11> hmm
[13:09:03] <dwd> guest11, You realise this is a relatively serious chatroom for discussion about the XMPP protocols?
[13:09:12] <guest11> sorry
[13:09:21] <MattJ> Speaking of invisibility...
[13:09:24] <guest11> i came here after four months
[13:09:27] <Michael McCarthy> thanks matt, much appreciated.
[13:09:31] <guest11> mattj
[13:09:36] <guest11> how arey ou
[13:10:06] <guest11> are there any other chatrooms ?
[13:10:14] <guest11> how do you search for chatrooms in jabber
[13:10:29] <guest11> which other website have jabber based chatrooms
[13:10:35] <dwd> guest11, Your client can pull up a list of chatrooms on a particular service.
[13:10:40] <dwd> guest11, And it's not a website.
[13:11:08] <MattJ> http://search.wensley.org.uk/ :)
[13:12:21] <guest11> dude i mean are there any websites like meebo.com
[13:12:45] <abhinavsingh> http://jaxl.im
[13:13:04] <abhinavsingh> still in alpha, on line of meebo but with different road map...
[13:14:13] <guest11> how do you search for meebo chatrooms
[13:14:15] <guest11> using that
[13:14:49] <Michael McCarthy> huest11 - what exactly are you looking for info wise?
[13:14:53] <Michael McCarthy> *guest11
[13:15:46] <abhinavsingh> search for room as in? do u need a web interface which can help you explore muc rooms on various servers?
[13:15:54] <abhinavsingh> or something similar?
[13:16:06] <guest11> yes
[13:17:55] <guest11> most of the chatrooms that show up in muc search doesnt even work
[13:18:25] <guest11> ]Error Unrecoverable Error (Remote Server Not Found)
[13:20:27] <guest11> why cant i enter this chatroom centralpark@chat.chesspark.com
[13:20:48] <dwd> Chesspark is no more.
[13:20:52] <dwd> At least, not for XMPP.
[13:23:29] <guest11> dwd do me a big favour and tell me an active chatroom
[13:23:35] <guest11> which is not boring like this one
[13:23:43] <Michael McCarthy> thanks for the help re invisibility everyone
[13:23:47] <MattJ> np
[13:24:59] <dwd> guest11, chat@conference.jabber.org
[13:25:35] * Michael McCarthy left the chat.
[13:26:08] <louiz’> That's not really active…
[13:27:31] * Guus joined the chat.
[13:28:40] <guest11> atleast nobody argued that this chatroom is boring
[13:29:22] <MattJ> It is, incredibly boring
[13:29:47] <dwd> guest11, It isn't meant to be fun. It's meant to be useful. Which it is.
[13:29:48] <guest11> mattj used to flirt with me before
[13:29:58] <guest11> and theres this another mod who hacked my password
[13:30:04] <guest11> i forgot his name
[13:43:22] <dwd> guest11, I suspect you may be confused with some parallel universe.
[13:43:56] * deryni left the chat.
[13:48:00] <guest11> bye i gotta go
[13:48:02] <guest11> love you all
[13:48:06] <guest11> god bless you all
[13:48:09] * guest11 left the chat.
[13:48:21] <MattJ> .
[13:48:27] <MattJ> Is it safe now?
[13:50:43] <louiz’> yes
[13:50:57] <Kev> It's never safe.
[13:51:02] <louiz’> :( !
[13:52:04] <dwd> Now folks.
[13:52:07] <dwd> Let's play a game.
[13:52:18] <dwd> Complete the following well-known phrase or saying:
[13:52:32] <dwd> [13:29:48] guest11: mattj used to flirt with me before
[13:52:37] <dwd> ... he found Lua.
[13:52:45] <MattJ> !slap dwd
[13:52:52] <louiz’> :D
[13:53:07] <louiz’> !invok HAL
[13:53:28] <MattJ> Considering I found Lua before I found XMPP, I guess I'm fairly safe
[13:59:16] <petermount> hehe
[13:59:45] <petermount> although I don't use Eclipse, I see it now supports Lua...
[14:02:39] <Kev> Eclipse isn't half bad, at least for C/C++.
[14:02:49] <Kev> Not a fan of it for Java, but hey.
[14:03:27] <petermount> I prefer NetBeans as it's C/C++ support isn't bad either
[14:05:10] <Kev> I've not tried NetBeans's C/C++ recently. I prefer NetBeans for Java.
[14:06:05] <petermount> Fairly easy to add other languages as well - & thats ignoring it's whiteboarding which is XMPP (bringing this back on topic
;-) )
[14:07:24] * Tobias joined the chat.
[14:21:11] <dwd> MattJ, Can I bug you for some 198 interoppery?
[14:21:19] <MattJ> Sure
[14:22:03] <dwd> puncture.dave.cridland.net has my existing 198 support, rewritten. I've tested it against my previous code, and against Swift
and Tobias's Psi.
[14:23:17] <MattJ> Is that the XMPP host?
[14:23:38] <dwd> Yes. There's a test@puncture.dave.cridland.net resource live.
[14:24:57] <dwd> Do you have a convenient server I can prod?
[14:26:18] <MattJ> heavy-horse.co.uk should still have it enabled
[14:27:04] <MattJ> You can poke matthew.wild there
[14:28:27] <dwd> Oh. Hyphen. Wondered why that wasn't working.
[14:28:48] <MattJ> Heh
[14:29:24] <dwd> Found your MUC. :-)
[14:32:45] * Michael McCarthy joined the chat.
[14:32:45] * Michael McCarthy left the chat.
[14:33:12] * Zash joined the chat.
[14:34:34] * Michael McCarthy joined the chat.
[14:34:38] <Michael McCarthy> maybe I misread what you were saying before - do privacy and muc not get on
[14:36:49] <Kev> 'privacy' or 'privacy lists'?
[14:36:58] <Michael McCarthy> privacy lists ie 0126
[14:37:18] <Kev> There's not much useful you can do with the interactions between them.
[14:37:27] <Michael McCarthy> I know 0045 isn't core xmpp, so is there a chance 0126 was written without it in mind?
[14:38:00] <Kev> 126 Isn't privacy lists, 16 is privacy lists.
[14:38:11] <Kev> Isn't 126 one of the invisibilities.?
[14:38:25] <Zash> Kindahard to do when MUC isn't on your server
[14:38:35] <Michael McCarthy> sorry, yes, 0126 is invisibility
[14:38:46] <Michael McCarthy> implemented using lists
[14:38:52] <Michael McCarthy> <query xmlns='jabber:iq:privacy'>
<list name='invisible'>
<item action='deny' order='1'>
<presence-out/>
</item>
</list>
</query>
[14:39:03] <Michael McCarthy> so our server has MUC (openfire)
[14:39:21] <Kev> If you are invisible with 126, it's not possible to join a MUC.
[14:39:55] <Michael McCarthy> ok, got you now, you did say that before - "You could use a privacy list to stop you sending presence to a MUC JID, but that
just means you can't send the 'join' presence to the MUC either."
[14:39:56] <Zash> You would need some ugly hack in the MUC itself
[14:40:11] <Kev> Michael McCarthy: Yes, I believe what I said is correct.
[14:40:32] <Kev> If you block outbound presence to the MUC, with whatever granularity, you prevent yourself joining the MUC.
[14:42:20] <Michael McCarthy> ok, - so botton line is 0126 is great for IM and rosters
[14:42:25] <Michael McCarthy> but has no use in MUC
[14:43:26] <Kev> I'm not convinced it's great for anything, but it certainly doesn't play well with MUC.
[14:43:35] <MattJ> You can't cut a phone line and then expect to be able to participate in a conference call without anyone knowing :)
[14:43:46] <Michael McCarthy> thanks Kev, learning new things every day about XMPP
[14:43:51] <Zash> Michael McCarthy: What functionality are you after?
[14:44:27] <Michael McCarthy> I develop the chat part of an online gaming site, it's all MUC with 100-600 users in a room
[14:44:47] <Michael McCarthy> we have 'chat hosts' (room admins in MUC terms)
[14:44:58] <Michael McCarthy> who sometimes need to monitor a room 'invisibly'
[14:45:02] <Zash> You don't want the users to see each other?
[14:45:06] <Zash> Oh
[14:45:17] <Michael McCarthy> we don't want users to sometimes see these hosts
[14:45:54] <Zash> It still needs support in the actualy MUC code
[14:46:07] <Kev> Michael McCarthy: That's a reasonable use case, just not something 45 supports out of the box.
[14:46:37] <Michael McCarthy> yeah, I think it might have to be some client side implementation (it's a custom flash based client)
[14:47:36] * Lloyd Lane joined the chat.
[14:47:36] * Lloyd Lane left the chat.
[14:47:45] <Kev> You could do that.
[14:48:02] <Kev> It may be you can do it out of band.
[14:48:08] <Kev> Depending on what monitoring you want.
[14:48:12] <Michael McCarthy> out of band?
[14:48:17] <Kev> Without joining the MUC.
[14:48:23] <Kev> e.g. you can query who's in the room without joining it.
[14:48:45] <Michael McCarthy> it's actually monitoring of the messages they are interested in
[14:48:54] <Michael McCarthy> in real time
[14:49:04] <Kev> Right, so joining the room is probably the path of least resistance.
[14:49:13] <Zash> Or get the room to exclude some users when sending presence
[14:49:26] <Kev> Unless you intend federation or opening of clients, doing it client-side is easiest.
[14:49:29] <Michael McCarthy> i guess - or use that xep for message retrieval but I don't think it's meant to be real time
[14:49:32] <Zash> or hack it to post all messages to another room
[14:49:46] <Kev> If you intend either of those things, the Right fix is to change the MUC code server-side.
[14:49:55] * Lloyd Lane joined the chat.
[14:50:14] <Michael McCarthy> I'll see what we can do
[14:50:14] * Lloyd Lane left the chat.
[14:50:22] <Michael McCarthy> thanks for that
[14:51:04] * Tobias left the chat.
[14:54:55] * Lloyd Lane joined the chat.
[14:56:19] * Michael McCarthy left the chat.
[15:04:35] * Tobias joined the chat.
[15:14:33] * hawke joined the chat.
[15:17:20] * Alex left the chat.
[15:23:29] * deryni joined the chat.
[15:24:58] * Lloyd Lane left the chat.
[15:25:32] * Lloyd Lane joined the chat.
[15:34:00] * ermine left the chat.
[15:34:24] * ermine joined the chat.
[16:04:21] * waqas joined the chat.
[16:05:49] <waqas> Does anyone object to <not-authorized/> being the SASL error condition for out of order SASL elements recieved by the server?
[16:07:29] <MattJ> Yes, as you well know, you're late to this conversation - it finished some months back :)
[16:07:49] <waqas> I know. Did we reach a consensus though? :)
[16:08:17] <waqas> I believe M-Link uses <not-authorized/>, while we and ejabberd ignore.
[16:08:34] <louiz’> salut, on va faire les coucourses à sa mémère
[16:08:45] <louiz’> sorry about that…
[16:09:20] <MattJ> waqas, consensus is whatever is in the bis drafts now
[16:09:33] * mlundblad_laptop left the chat.
[16:10:58] <waqas> MattJ: Indeed, but I don't see this in there :)
[16:13:31] * Tobias left the chat.
[16:16:51] * hawke left the chat.
[16:17:00] * hawke joined the chat.
[16:23:35] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.
[16:25:05] <Zash> Oh
[16:25:07] <Zash> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-18#section-6.5.11
[16:25:25] <Zash> waqas: !!
[16:25:30] * bear left the chat.
[16:25:37] * bear joined the chat.
[16:27:47] <Zash> Or?
[16:27:50] <waqas> Zash: To me temporary-auth-failure would mean sending the exact same data again may work later, when in this case it wouldn't.
[16:27:56] * tofu joined the chat.
[16:28:37] <Zash> I think I missed some part of the question :/
[16:29:28] <Zash> malformed-request?
[16:29:39] <waqas> Zash: Client sends <auth/> to start, then sends more <response/> elements. What should happen if the client sent <response/>
without <auth/>?
[16:29:54] * jonas left the chat.
[16:30:11] <dwd> waqas, Yes, we send <not-authorized/> and terminate the stream.
[16:30:28] <dwd> waqas, Basically, fi your client is that screwed already, we don't want to know what else you'll try to do. :-)
[16:30:38] <waqas> Right :)
[16:31:06] <MattJ> not-authorized is the wrong error
[16:31:07] <Zash> malformed-request does sound more proper
[16:31:26] <waqas> MattJ: There is no other error which fits as well :/
[16:32:28] <waqas> Zash: malformed-request.. could work. It's out of order, but not malformed though. The text content is never checked for well-formedness
in this case.
[16:32:51] <MattJ> waqas, unsupported-stanza-type
[16:32:57] <MattJ> which is what we do now, no?
[16:33:11] <waqas> MattJ: No, we currently ignore, which is what I'm fixing.
[16:33:47] <waqas> unsupported-stanza-type.. hmm
[16:34:19] <MattJ> Why do we ignore? We don't ignore other unknown top-level elements
[16:34:25] <waqas> I still think it should be an SASL failure, which unsupported-stanza-type isn't.
[16:34:33] <MattJ> I don't think it should
[16:34:50] <MattJ> Oh wait, you're talking about a different case
[16:35:07] <MattJ> On the list was discussed the client sending <challenge>, etc.
[16:40:05] <dwd> Sending anything other than not-authorized would be a real PITA for us
[16:40:48] <waqas> not-authorized is the closest thing to undefined-condition SASL has.
[16:41:57] <MattJ> wfm (for <response>)
[16:43:08] <waqas> And what should we do with SASL/TLS elements after SASL/TLS has already succeeded? :)
[16:43:31] <dwd> <not-authorized/>.
[16:43:46] <MattJ> <unsupported-stanza-type/>!
[16:43:46] <dwd> It means "You sent this when the stream was in the wrong state", to us.
[16:43:55] <Zash> MattJ: +1
[16:43:59] <MattJ> It means "You sent this and we didn't handle it." to us
[16:44:14] <Zash> Does it say somewhere that <auth/> must be before <response/> ?
[16:44:29] <MattJ> Zash, likely, <auth> always begins a SASL exchange
[16:44:39] <dwd> <unsupported-stanza-type/> means "We'll never handle that". <not-authorized/> means "We *will* handle that, just not now."
[16:44:41] <MattJ> Without it you don't even know which mechanism the client is using :)
[16:45:01] <MattJ> not-authorized means you aren't *allowed* to do that
[16:46:41] <Zash> MattJ: What do you do if someone sends stream management stanzas on streams without it activated?
[16:47:02] <MattJ> unsupported-stanza-type, ideally
[16:47:09] <MattJ> Though right now it probably just tracebacks :)
[16:47:26] <Zash> so, != "We'll never handle that"
[16:48:33] <Zash> Is it missing a generetic "you can't send that now" error?
[16:50:13] <waqas> And I think I'll just allow <auth/> after <auth/>, later ones starting a new SASL negotiation :/
[16:50:57] <Zash> logging out of the current one?
[16:51:16] <waqas> When the current one is incomplete
[16:51:37] <waqas> Negotiating after auth is an unsupported-stanza-type error at the moment.
[16:51:51] <MattJ> Good :)
[16:52:08] <Zash> Multiple sessions! :P
[16:52:27] <waqas> Zash: I tried to get multi-bind in, but MattJ hates it :)
[16:52:39] <MattJ> Quite rightly
[16:52:43] <dwd> waqas, Good, it's eeevil.
[16:52:55] <dwd> waqas, Emphasis on the 'eee'.
[16:53:00] <MattJ> You can have it when we have SCTP
[16:53:16] <dwd> MattJ, Over IPv6, with DNSSEC.
[16:53:28] <MattJ> You think I'm joking ;)
[16:53:59] <dwd> MattJ, GIven you're willing to write an XMPP server in LUA just to prove a point, I've no doubt you're not. :-P
[16:54:16] <MattJ> /ignore dwd
[16:55:05] <Zash> Can haz SCTP over IPv6 with DNSSEC nao? :)
[16:55:17] <MattJ> Soon
[16:55:32] <MattJ> But we need to tame OpenSSL for cert verification first :)
[16:55:58] <Zash> oh, then we can finaly get rid of the CA mess :D
[16:56:14] <Zash> and keys in DNS :D
[17:00:35] * smoku left the chat.
[17:06:07] * Tobias joined the chat.
[17:23:47] * dwd left the chat.
[17:30:01] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.
[17:39:29] * Florob joined the chat.
[17:41:03] * Guus left the chat.
[17:45:10] * wiretap joined the chat.
[17:46:42] * Lloyd Lane left the chat.
[17:49:33] * Neustradamus left the chat.
[17:51:56] * stpeter joined the chat.
[17:57:56] * teo1 left the chat.
[18:07:25] * petermount left the chat.
[18:07:30] <MattJ> I need to make a plugin for Prosody that turns my messages to Dave into emails when he is offline
[18:07:44] <MattJ> His refusal to enable offline messages is frustrating sometimes :)
[18:07:48] <Kev> Heh.
[18:08:02] <Kev> I hadn't realised he has them off.
[18:08:17] <MattJ> You get a service-unavailable back
[18:09:59] <MattJ> It would be easier if he switched to Prosody and used mod_offline_email, but I guess that's not going to happen :)
[18:13:21] <Zash> MattJ: take it and turn it backwards :)
[18:13:53] <MattJ> Hmm?
[18:14:01] <MattJ> You mean mod_offline_email?
[18:14:03] <Zash> yes
[18:14:11] <MattJ> If only :)
[18:15:04] <MattJ> Not too hard I guess, but would need to be enabled/disabled per contact for it to be usable
[18:16:59] <Zash> Or hack/make a plugin for Gajim's message receipt stuff to launch a email composer when you get service-unavaliable and has
a vcard with email :)
[18:18:43] * Neustradamus joined the chat.
[18:19:29] <waqas> MattJ: Simply handle the service-unavailable stanza if m-link sends the contents back :)
[18:19:47] <MattJ> Good idea
[18:27:09] * Florob left the chat.
[18:27:12] * Florob joined the chat.
[18:36:26] * Tobias left the chat.
[18:49:44] * teo1 joined the chat.
[19:14:39] * mlundblad joined the chat.
[19:18:26] * jonas joined the chat.
[19:22:20] * justin joined the chat.
[19:24:28] * Tobias joined the chat.
[19:26:40] * Tobias left the chat.
[19:29:04] * abhinavsingh left the chat.
[19:37:01] * teo1 left the chat.
[19:37:02] * teo1 joined the chat.
[19:40:55] * smoku joined the chat.
[19:43:53] * Ludovic joined the chat.
[19:53:21] * Treebilou joined the chat.
[20:20:22] <stpeter> http://www.slideshare.net/EricssonLabs/droidcon-understanding-smartphone-traffic (found via identi.ca just now) is apropos
given the discussion on the jdev email list right now :)
[20:32:02] * justin left the chat.
[20:32:33] * justin joined the chat.
[20:32:43] * justin left the chat.
[20:41:34] * Treebilou left the chat.
[20:46:31] * Ludovic left the chat.
[21:07:02] * hawke left the chat.
[21:07:59] * hawke joined the chat.
[21:30:48] * Tobias joined the chat.
[22:13:37] * florob42 joined the chat.
[22:17:10] * florob42 left the chat.
[22:20:06] * ermine left the chat.
[22:22:05] * stpeter left the chat.
[22:28:05] * mlundblad left the chat.
[22:54:25] * jonas left the chat.
[23:07:59] * wiretap left the chat.
[23:08:01] * wiretap joined the chat.
[23:11:45] * Tobias left the chat.
[23:26:30] * tofu left the chat.
[23:34:09] * tofu joined the chat.
[23:38:53] * tofu left the chat.
[23:39:49] * tofu joined the chat.
[23:51:19] * hawke left the chat.