Logs for jabber

Show join/part/nick changes:

[05:00:42] * dreamcast left the chat.
[05:40:17] * Tobias joined the chat.
[05:55:11] * NEOhidra joined the chat.
[05:59:42] * HedgeMage left the chat.
[06:11:32] * Flo joined the chat.
[06:19:27] * niekie left the chat.
[06:20:47] * Tobias left the chat.
[06:24:59] * anonymous9796 left the chat.
[06:38:26] * evilotto left the chat.
[07:02:16] * atteyw joined the chat.
[07:07:59] * NEOhidra left the chat.
[07:08:21] * atteyw left the chat.
[07:10:08] * Ricardo Rodríguez joined the chat.
[07:11:02] * Tobias joined the chat.
[07:19:17] * niekie joined the chat.
[07:20:46] * yuppinturic joined the chat.
[07:21:22] * yuppinturic left the chat.
[07:21:34] * yuppinturic joined the chat.
[07:31:15] * Ricardo Rodríguez left the chat.
[07:38:47] * Lastwebpage joined the chat.
[07:50:06] * Nÿco joined the chat.
[07:52:16] * naw joined the chat.
[07:54:10] * Ricardo Rodríguez joined the chat.
[08:03:45] * Ricardo Rodríguez left the chat.
[08:08:39] * Lastwebpage left the chat.
[08:08:56] * yuppinturic left the chat.
[08:09:07] * yuppinturic joined the chat.
[08:09:15] * Lastwebpage joined the chat.
[08:11:40] * Ricardo Rodríguez joined the chat.
[08:23:35] * Nÿco left the chat.
[08:42:09] * Raaj joined the chat.
[08:46:16] * Raaj left the chat.
[08:50:06] * Z_God joined the chat.
[08:51:18] * Nÿco joined the chat.
[08:54:46] * treebilou left the chat.
[09:00:46] * harrison42577 joined the chat.
[09:05:17] * Tobias left the chat.
[09:37:18] * harrison42577 left the chat.
[09:40:26] * Flo left the chat.
[09:52:17] * Ricardo Rodríguez left the chat.
[09:54:45] * ∞ left the chat.
[09:54:45] * the ♚ left the chat.
[09:54:56] * ∞ joined the chat.
[09:55:02] * the ♚ joined the chat.
[10:07:32] * mati joined the chat.
[10:18:05] * lurker37729 joined the chat.
[10:20:33] * grant10740 joined the chat.
[10:21:31] * mati left the chat.
[10:22:31] * grant10740 left the chat.
[10:22:57] * mati joined the chat.
[10:23:02] * lurker37729 left the chat.
[10:34:21] * Z_God left the chat.
[10:47:18] * treebilou joined the chat.
[10:49:22] * Nÿco left the chat.
[10:55:12] * Z_God joined the chat.
[10:55:36] * atx joined the chat.
[10:55:46] * atx left the chat.
[11:02:56] * Nÿco joined the chat.
[11:06:18] * buchanan41831 joined the chat.
[11:06:49] * Lastwebpage left the chat.
[11:07:58] * Z_God left the chat.
[11:09:10] * Tobias joined the chat.
[11:09:14] * Z_God joined the chat.
[11:09:40] * Lastwebpage joined the chat.
[11:12:39] * Tobias left the chat.
[11:20:56] * Flo joined the chat.
[11:22:15] <naw> buchanan41831: are you or your contacts using a gmail account?
[11:22:15] * Lastwebpage left the chat.
[11:27:10] * Lastwebpage joined the chat.
[11:27:45] <naw> and the problem happens with all of them?
[11:28:00] <naw> :s
[11:28:11] <naw> Kev: can you take a look, please?
[11:29:12] <naw> well, the client shouldn't be a prublem... but if you want to test, you can test with Psi for example
[11:29:17] <naw> *problem
[11:41:12] <Kev> 'invisible'?
[11:41:23] <Kev> I suspect you're doing something non-standard.
[11:44:10] <Kev> No.
[11:44:14] <Kev> Nor, I suspect, does Miranda.
[11:44:25] <Kev> Tell me what the XML you send when you select 'invisible' in Miranda is, please.
[11:44:33] <naw> [13:44:10] <Kev> No. <- actually you can enable it
[11:44:48] <Kev> naw: there is a hidden option to do something illegal.
[11:44:56] <Kev> Please don't encourage anyone to use it, it's disabled for a reason.
[11:46:24] <naw> oh, I see, there is not a legal way to be invisible in XMPP
[11:47:04] <Kev> There is, using privacy lists, which servers may not support (jabber.org doesn't)
[11:47:44] <Kev> That's why I'm interested to see what Miranda's doing - it's doing something wrong, it's a question of whether it's sending the illegal hack, or wrongly sending privacy lists when they're not supported.
[11:47:56] <naw> I'm reading it now (xep 126)
[11:55:52] <Kev> What's the XML?
[11:58:08] <Kev> If you don't want people to see when you're online, you can always remove them from your roster, but we don't do invisibility.
[11:59:54] <Kev> You can be online but not show up as online.
[12:00:01] <Kev> Just don't send the initial presence.
[12:00:48] <Kev> If you don't send initial presence, you will still receive any messages sent to you.
[12:01:36] <Kev> That's why I'm asking you to send me the protocol log for when you go invisible, so I can see what Miranda is doing.
[12:01:45] <Kev> I suspect whatever it's doing is wrong, but I'd like to check.
[12:03:13] <Kev> Miranda should have some option or plugin for printing the XML it sends and receives.
[12:05:11] <Kev> Line 204, <presence type="invisible> That's illegal in XMPP.
[12:07:23] <Kev> I don't know what Google Talk does - but what Miranda is sending to jabber.org there is illegal.
[12:07:40] <Kev> Well - don't use that bug in Miranda.
[12:10:05] <Kev> That isn't just illegal at jabber.org - XMPP forbids that you send <presenc type="invisible">
[12:13:01] <naw> buchanan41831: currently, the only legal way is to use privacy lists as defined in XEP-0126 but I guess that few clients have implemented it some servers also supports presence="invisible" because it was the de facto method time ago
[12:14:08] <Kev> buchanan41831: you can use privacy lists to make you roughly invisible, but jabber.org doesn't support privacy lists (and doesn't intend to).
[12:14:53] <Kev> Yes, I can see why.
[12:15:51] <Kev> Yes, so does jabber.org. You don't have to put anyone in your roster that you don't want to.
[12:16:55] <naw> buchanan41831: privacy lists allow you to block contacts
[12:16:56] <Kev> You were saying that jabber.org didn't support basic privacy, and it does.
[12:17:08] <Kev> All presence sharing is strictly opt-in.
[12:17:22] <naw> Kev: so, you can spam to a jabber.org user?
[12:17:33] <Kev> naw: in what sense?
[12:17:56] <Tanguy> naw, what do you want to do?
[12:18:16] <naw> in the sense that the jabber.org user won't be able to block messages from somebody
[12:18:35] <Kev> It doesn't support privacy lists, if that's what you're asking.
[12:19:31] <naw> hmm oh, I forgot that the RFC included pryvacy provisions
[12:19:43] <naw> *privacy
[12:20:16] <mati> naw, I only read that last sentence and thought "This must be some kind of weird python library" ;-)
[12:21:04] <Kev> buchanan41831: jabber.org will allow you to do 1 and 2, but not 3
[12:21:17] <Kev> To be able to see the status of your friends, you must share your status.
[12:21:18] <Tanguy> (3. except those that are also hidden :-))
[12:21:53] <Kev> Possibly, partially.
[12:22:09] <Kev> Because it leaks.
[12:22:14] <Tanguy> My one does, I think.
[12:22:19] <Tanguy> /me is probing it right now.
[12:22:26] <Kev> Like when ICQ introduced invisibility, and you could run a patched client that would show you who was invisible.
[12:23:16] <mati> yeah I remember that iCQ thing
[12:23:24] <Kev> buchanan41831: well, here's the problem:
[12:23:33] <Kev> I'm on server 1, you're on server 2
[12:23:47] <Kev> I connect to server 1, and say I want to be invisible
[12:23:55] <Kev> server 1 then has to ask server 2 if you're online
[12:23:58] <Kev> What does it say?
[12:24:07] <Tanguy> buchanan41831, when you hide your presence, but still ask for the presence of other people, their server will get presence requests from you, and will thus have a serious clue that you are not really offline.
[12:24:24] <Kev> "Hi, I want to know if you@server2 is online for me@server1. Only me@server1 isn't online at the moment. Honest. I'm just asking because I'm interested"
[12:25:10] <Kev> So server2 knows that me@server1 is online.
[12:25:20] <Kev> And it can tell you@server2, if it wants to.
[12:25:22] <Kev> So it leaks.
[12:25:29] <Tanguy> Now, however, it is possible to hide your presence, but you have no warranty that nobody will actually detect that.
[12:25:53] <Tanguy> No, it is just impossible to do.
[12:26:17] <Tanguy> It is like sending letters to someone while pretending you are out of range from the postal service: it cannot be true.
[12:26:31] <Kev> Other IM services don't federate.
[12:27:17] <Kev> If you control every server on the network, it's easy to do.
[12:27:23] <Tanguy> They depend on a single provider. This provider can do whatever it wants, including lying on presence status.
[12:27:26] <Kev> If anyone can run their own node, it's impossible to do.
[12:28:13] <Tanguy> It is like email, too. If you are sending messages and pretending you get email they send to you at the same time, it is an obvious lie that can be detected.
[12:28:33] <Tanguy> Yes it will do so.
[12:28:53] <Tanguy> Err, wait, no, the end of the sentence is wrong.
[12:29:11] <Kev> buchanan41831: yes, and what if the server decides not to lie about it?
[12:29:13] <Tanguy> It will lie about your status when replying to presence request from other, yes.
[12:29:18] <Kev> Then you're not invisible anymore.
[12:29:29] <Tanguy> But it will use your JID when you request the status of someone else.
[12:29:46] <Tanguy> And then, the lie will be detectable by this someone else's server.
[12:31:17] <Tanguy> And, by the way, it when you request someone else's status, your server has to use your JID, because it is this JID that is allowed to get this person's status. The other server has no reason to answer to a request that uses another JID.
[12:31:27] <Kev> What we're basically saying is - if you don't want people to see that you're online, don't send presence.
[12:31:45] <Tanguy> buchanan41831, they may be able to do so, if they use a server and a client that is coded to detect status lies.
[12:32:14] <Tanguy> I do not understand this last sentence.
[12:33:06] <Tanguy> You have example.com, for that purpose. :-)
[12:33:35] <Kev> You could stop your server sending any presence (including presence probes) to any users that you wanted.
[12:33:59] <Tanguy> There is no need for privacy list for that, is it?
[12:34:09] * Link Mauve joined the chat.
[12:34:18] <Tanguy> You can still allow and disallow whoever you want to your status updates, cannot you?
[12:34:35] <Kev> Tanguy: with roster subscriptions? Yes, but that's permanent.
[12:34:43] <Kev> Or, well, persistant I should say.
[12:34:54] <Tanguy> And privacy lists are not?
[12:35:04] <Kev> You can choose which privacy list you use at any moment.
[12:36:00] <Kev> You could set your privacy list to not allow any presence out - but then you won't see them online either.
[12:36:17] <Kev> Because your server won't send a presence probe to them, to see if they're online.
[12:36:29] <Kev> And you don't need a privacy list for this, you can just not send presence in the first place.
[12:36:56] <Kev> Yes, you should do.
[12:37:55] <Kev> Not reliably, no.
[12:38:21] <Kev> There's, logically, no way you can say to someone "Are you there?" without revealing that you're there too.
[12:40:19] <Kev> Most people who need to be offline to some people, and online to others, use two accounts.
[12:43:00] <Tanguy> /me agrees with Kev.
[12:43:25] <Tanguy> “There's, logically, no way you can say to someone "Are you there?" without revealing that you're there too.” ← right, perfectly logical
[12:43:56] <Tanguy> No, this is not applicable.
[12:44:24] <Kev> And if you're the only user on example.com that has a contact on test.com? (or in reverse) - bang, you've leaked that you're invisible.
[12:44:24] <Tanguy> Because a server has no reason to reveal the status of one of his user to someone anonymous.
[12:45:47] <Tanguy> Then I did not understant your example.
[12:46:33] <Tanguy> <one@example.com> want to know the status of <two@example.org>
[12:46:46] <Tanguy> What happens, on you imaginary system?
[12:50:03] <Tanguy> Who wants to know what?
[12:50:13] <Tanguy> /me understands nothing to this example.
[12:50:52] <Tanguy> Okay, let me read that.
[12:51:30] <Tanguy> Good. On the first step (asd@test.com > (ask zxc@example.com about status) > status@example.com), the server example.com will know that asd@test.com is online.
[12:52:02] <Tanguy> Then this server example.com may reveal to zxc@example.com that asd@test.com is online.
[12:53:17] <Tanguy> Then the server example.com may refuse to give the requested information.
[12:53:56] <Tanguy> Because “someone unidentified@test.com” is not allowed to get the status of zxc@example.com.
[12:54:15] <Tanguy> Okay, who is it, then?
[12:54:53] <Tanguy> So zxc@example.com has to allow this status@example.com to get its status?
[12:55:21] <Tanguy> /me would never, ever allow that, as it would potentially mean allowing anyone@example.com to get my status, in practice.
[12:55:55] <Tanguy> Are you simply planning to expose anyone's status to anyone?
[12:56:18] <Tanguy> That is, to allow status@anywhere to get the status of anyone on the Internet?
[12:56:40] <Tanguy> Who maintains that list?
[12:57:59] <Tanguy> Their is no solution. Either you are identified when you ask for a status, or you are anonymized and then you will not receive an anwser because you are not identified.
[12:58:09] <Kev> buchanan41831: then you still leak.
[12:58:23] <Tanguy> s/their/there/ :-)
[12:58:58] <Tanguy> Yes, it has you. But who is asking for the presence of zxc@example.com?
[12:59:01] <Kev> buchanan41831: yes, and if asd@test.com is the only person that has zxc@example.com in their roster...
[12:59:19] <Tanguy> You? Then you are identified and you leak.
[12:59:44] * mati left the chat.
[13:00:23] <Tanguy> Some “special service”, actually anonymous? Then you will not get an answer.
[13:02:26] * Duuuark joined the chat.
[13:03:34] <Kev> buchanan41831: roughly, yes.
[13:05:44] <Kev> You can make a mostly safe invisible mode (there will always be people who can tell if you're invisible), but you have to change the model.
[13:07:08] <Tanguy> /me does not see that as a bad thing.
[13:07:22] * mpranj joined the chat.
[13:07:30] <Tanguy> It is not possible to lie about your status in an undetectable way.
[13:08:49] <Kev> buchanan41831: if you're happy to just tell people to go away if they see you online... you don't need to be invisible :)
[13:11:20] <MattJ> buchanan41831, I develop one of the server software available - invisibility /is/ a problem
[13:11:39] <MattJ> It can be solved either by not letting you see the status of your contacts, or by asking your contacts even though you are invisible
[13:11:46] <Tanguy> The situation is: if someone allows you to see his presence, then it may have a way to see whether you are online or not, even if you try to hide that. This seems honest.
[13:11:59] <MattJ> I'm happy to support either method, but if I supported the latter then I *would* also make a plugin to detect invisible users
[13:12:12] <Kev> MattJ: you already support the first method, of course.
[13:12:15] <MattJ> Because someone would do it anyway if it wasn't me :)
[13:12:21] <MattJ> Kev, indeed
[13:12:32] <Kev> buchanan41831: that's what DND mode is for, though.
[13:13:00] <MattJ> buchanan41831, get a client that doesn't disturb you when you're marked as "Do no disturb"
[13:13:12] <MattJ> and if yours does, file a bug against that client
[13:15:24] <Tanguy> By the way, if you have some annoying people that distrurb you while you are not to be disturbed, block them, and that is all.
[13:15:55] <Tanguy> Or explain them that they should not do that and that if they continue, you will block them. This is a problem of respect, not of technique.
[13:16:50] <naw> buchanan41831: some clients like psi, doen't open new windows or play sounds if you are DND
[13:16:58] <Tanguy> Well, if someone has an annoying contact he cannot block, sorry for him, but why should we bother?
[13:17:33] <Tanguy> What is that hard question?
[13:17:51] <MattJ> So "invisible" == "Really really really do not disturb" :)
[13:19:33] <MattJ> eek, it would be less beautiful with hacks like you suggest :)
[13:19:38] <Tanguy> I thing it is not ugly as you thout.
[13:19:56] <Tanguy> Because the ability to lie without being detected is not beautiful at all.
[13:20:24] <MattJ> or possible :)
[13:20:47] <Tanguy> Now, be aware that being able to detect invisible status requires specifically coded server and client.
[13:21:00] <Tanguy> So it is possible, but really not at the range of anyone.
[13:21:11] <MattJ> Oh, it will be :)
[13:21:29] <MattJ> I plan to support invisibility as buchanan41831 describes
[13:21:33] * wiretap left the chat.
[13:21:53] <MattJ> buchanan41831, sure, it is already possible - just few servers support it (it has flaws)
[13:21:59] <MattJ> as we've just discussed
[13:22:10] <Kev> MattJ: why on earth would you do that?
[13:22:18] <MattJ> but some people like you still want it, I just hope you realise there is no such thing as perfect invisibility
[13:22:25] <Kev> It's a pretty horrible model.
[13:22:34] <MattJ> Kev, it's what people want
[13:22:42] <Tanguy> What model?
[13:22:43] <Kev> No, people don't care about how it's implemented.
[13:22:59] <MattJ> Kev, if you think I mean his status@example.com - ugh, no :)
[13:23:01] <Kev> They certainly don't want fake JIDs being passed around as the source of presence probes an things.
[13:23:07] <MattJ> I just mean invisibility + probes
[13:23:17] <Tanguy> Probes?
[13:23:33] <MattJ> Tanguy, presence probes are what you send to contacts to get their current status
[13:23:42] <MattJ> or more correctly, what your server sends
[13:23:56] <Tanguy> Oh what you plan to implement is the detection of hidden statuses?
[13:24:01] <MattJ> and servers don't send them when you're invisible, to not leak the fact that you are online
[13:24:23] <MattJ> But I plan to make it possible to choose to send probes, and accept that people can tell you are online
[13:24:42] <MattJ> and then I shall develop a server plugin to allow clients to detect invisible users
[13:24:56] * wiretap joined the chat.
[13:25:14] <MattJ> ICQ had a hard time with the same, many clients had the ability to show invisible users
[13:25:25] <MattJ> and they're not even decentralized
[13:25:46] <MattJ> Offline messages should just work, they don't need client support
[13:25:55] <Tanguy> Use a negative priority, buchanan41831.
[13:26:02] <Kev> Tanguy: no, wrong answer.
[13:26:15] <Kev> MattJ: they need the client to not be spending spurious illegal presences ;)
[13:26:33] <MattJ> ?
[13:26:41] <Kev> Miranda sends type='invisible'
[13:26:51] <MattJ> Ah, that's a jabberd misfeature
[13:27:06] <Kev> I *assume* (without checking the code) that jabber.org is then treating this as type=unavailable, and not routing to it.
[13:27:17] * wiretap left the chat.
[13:27:25] * wiretap joined the chat.
[13:28:30] <MattJ> Kev, I was talking about invisibility with the Telepathy folks at the summit
[13:28:42] <MattJ> They're in favour of "invisible command", and so am I
[13:28:58] <MattJ> So I intend to implement that, but with an optional flag specifying whether to send probes
[13:29:08] <Kev> Well, we already have invisible ):
[13:29:08] <MattJ> Think this would be a valid thing to add to the XEP?
[13:29:09] <Kev> :)
[13:29:16] <Kev> Just don't send presence ;)
[13:29:22] <MattJ> Not quite :)
[13:29:36] <Kev> But right, the not-quite-but-mostly-invisible thing with probes seems reasonable if people want that thing.
[13:29:43] <Kev> Add to which XEP?
[13:29:48] <Kev> It sounds likea XEP on its own.
[13:29:50] <MattJ> !xep invisible command
[13:29:52] <HAL> XEP-0186: Invisible Command is Standards Track (Experimental, 2008-10-07) See: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0186.html
[13:30:06] <Kev> Oh, bring back 186?
[13:30:09] <MattJ> +1
[13:30:09] <Tanguy> rm -rf midsgn/ ; mv madeindesign/ midsgn
[13:30:13] <Tanguy> Ooops.
[13:30:30] <Tanguy> Wrong paste. :-)
[13:30:56] <MattJ> Kev, so: <iq from='bilbo@tolkien.lit/shire'     id='inv1'     type='set'>   <invisible xmlns='urn:xmpp:invisible:0' probes='true' /> </iq>
[13:31:28] <Kev> MattJ: although a far simpler thing to do is just <presence><please-pretend-im-not-here/></presence>
[13:31:39] <Kev> And ask that clients display that as offline :)
[13:32:07] <MattJ> Yeah, like that'll see adoption :)
[13:37:15] <MattJ> Yes, so are are you :)
[13:37:28] <Kev> buchanan41831: anyone can develop a new spec and submit it to Council for consideration, via the XEP Editor.
[13:39:24] <MattJ> Sure, always
[13:39:28] <Kev> Yes, you're speaking to 40% of Council at the moment.
[13:40:39] * Flo left the chat.
[13:43:02] <MattJ> File bugs against those projects
[13:43:53] <MattJ> That would be a client feature
[13:43:59] <Tanguy> This would be a (crazy) client feature.
[13:44:03] <MattJ> Yes :)
[13:44:27] <MattJ> buchanan41831, for example?
[13:44:31] <Tanguy> This is always the problem with new things.
[13:44:56] <Kev> That's nothing to do with a server, that's a client feature.
[13:45:14] <Kev> I didn't know there were any clients that didn't do xep-85.
[13:45:22] <Kev> (Chat State Notifications)
[13:46:34] <Kev> Why would a server require that a client supports typing notifications?
[13:47:30] <MattJ> It means if someone supports typing notifications, this is how they do it
[13:47:47] <Tanguy> There will always be software lagging, for instance, Microsoft Internet Explorer does not support XHTML served as XML, ten years after it has been defined.
[13:47:52] <MattJ> It's not XMPP's fault if a client isn't feature-complete
[13:48:18] * mpranj left the chat.
[13:48:27] <MattJ> buchanan41831, like not being able to log in? :P
[13:48:46] <Tanguy> But at least with free software the feature are generally implemented faster, and you can even implement them yourself, or hire someone to do it.
[13:49:06] <Kev> Tanguy: Free software implements features faster? That's a bold claim :)
[13:49:11] <MattJ> buchanan41831, imagine someone developing a client
[13:49:11] <Tanguy> With proprietary software, you can just suggest, complain and wait.
[13:49:22] <MattJ> buchanan41831, and they try to test their client, and get people to test it
[13:49:40] <MattJ> but say, they don't support file transfer yet (that can be complicated to implement)
[13:49:44] <MattJ> so nobody can use their client
[13:49:50] <MattJ> because all the servers deny their logins
[13:49:58] <MattJ> that client would never be developed
[13:50:02] <MattJ> Absolute madness
[13:50:11] <Kev> So, for example, jabber.org should block any client that doesn't support XEP-0258.
[13:50:23] <Kev> Or, even better, block any client or server that doesn't support XEP-0258
[13:50:27] <MattJ> Oh yes, that would solve our server load issues :)
[13:50:36] <Kev> Because *everyone* needs military security labels.
[13:50:58] <Kev> No, it's really not.
[13:51:19] <Kev> 'GOOD and working' has nothing to do with supporting all of the possible XMPP extensions.
[13:51:47] <MattJ> buchanan41831, I'd argue that *no* clients would exist if servers did this
[13:51:55] <MattJ> buchanan41831, and what if we publish a new XEP tomorrow?
[13:52:03] <MattJ> buchanan41831, should all the servers instantly disconnect all the users?
[13:52:11] <MattJ> until the developers have finished adding the new feature?
[13:52:27] <MattJ> buchanan41831, I don't know any popular clients that don't support typing notifications or file transfer
[13:52:28] <Kev> buchanan41831: to who? To you? To the military? To corporates?
[13:53:17] <Kev> What about when you're talking to servers over a bytes-per-second HF radio link?
[13:53:35] <Kev> Not all features are important to everyone, that's why you can choose which features you need.
[13:55:02] <Kev> And all those features will work with most mainstream clients, on most mainstream servers.
[13:55:29] <MattJ> Gmail bug?
[13:55:37] <MattJ> Would you rather not be able to talk to those people *at all*?
[13:55:38] <Kev> MattJ: that's really not a bug.
[13:55:48] <MattJ> Kev, afaik they do support typing notifications
[13:56:03] <Kev> Yeah, but it's not a bug that they don't support PEP.
[13:56:09] <MattJ> Indeed
[13:56:39] <MattJ> /me removes all Gmail users from his contact list now, until they support that
[13:57:27] <MattJ> I'd also like to point out that not implementing features can be design choices
[13:57:40] <MattJ> Like I wouldn't necessarily want typing notifictations on my mobile
[13:57:55] <MattJ> because it would cause more network activity, using bandwidth, CPU and battery power
[14:00:06] <MattJ> :)
[14:01:08] <MattJ> I want to implement invisibility where you can still see the status of your contacts
[14:03:39] * jerry joined the chat.
[14:03:49] <MattJ> You can add me to your contact list and keep asking me :)
[14:03:56] <MattJ> Otherwise I'll forget to notify you
[14:04:54] <MattJ> me@matthewwild.co.uk
[14:04:56] * jerry left the chat.
[14:15:34] * mati joined the chat.
[14:16:41] * buchanan41831 left the chat.
[14:20:25] * mati left the chat.
[14:22:02] * Ricardo Rodríguez joined the chat.
[14:22:07] * mati joined the chat.
[14:36:43] * Flo joined the chat.
[14:46:53] * dwd joined the chat.
[14:58:35] * Ricardo Rodríguez left the chat.
[14:58:43] * Ricardo Rodríguez joined the chat.
[15:02:22] * dbgreer joined the chat.
[15:02:23] * dbgreer left the chat.
[15:07:17] * dbgreer joined the chat.
[15:07:17] * dbgreer left the chat.
[15:11:48] * dbgreer joined the chat.
[15:11:49] * dbgreer left the chat.
[15:12:17] * dbgreer joined the chat.
[15:12:17] * dbgreer left the chat.
[15:12:56] * dbgreer joined the chat.
[15:12:56] * dbgreer left the chat.
[15:14:30] * dbgreer joined the chat.
[15:14:31] * dbgreer left the chat.
[15:16:42] * dbgreer joined the chat.
[15:16:43] * dbgreer left the chat.
[15:17:52] * dbgreer joined the chat.
[15:17:52] * dbgreer left the chat.
[15:18:29] * dbgreer joined the chat.
[15:18:30] * dbgreer left the chat.
[15:31:57] * Gaspode joined the chat.
[15:32:00] <Gaspode> hi
[15:32:55] <Gaspode> how's the privacy list support going on jabber.org ? we had it before the switch to mlink, are there plans to restore it ?
[15:33:13] <Kev> No.
[15:33:42] <Gaspode> so there is no, and there will never be, any way to "block" users ?
[15:33:50] <Gaspode> or rather contacts
[15:34:10] <Kev> There'll be blocking support, but it won't be privacy lists.
[15:34:16] <Kev> Probably Simple Communications Blocking.
[15:34:38] * mpranj joined the chat.
[15:35:21] * clinton11261 joined the chat.
[15:35:23] <Gaspode> thanks for the information
[15:35:31] <Gaspode> any time frame ?
[15:36:05] <Kev> Not at the moment.
[15:37:15] * clinton11261 left the chat.
[15:37:21] <Gaspode> ok thanks
[15:43:21] * Z_God left the chat.
[15:43:37] * Nÿco left the chat.
[15:44:54] * Gaspode left the chat.
[15:52:32] * niekie left the chat.
[15:52:56] * jprieur joined the chat.
[15:53:25] * jprieur left the chat.
[15:58:44] * stpeter joined the chat.
[16:00:04] * naw left the chat.
[16:02:51] * HedgeMage joined the chat.
[16:07:22] * evilotto joined the chat.
[16:19:26] * Tobias joined the chat.
[16:21:37] * dbgreer joined the chat.
[16:21:37] * dbgreer left the chat.
[16:25:37] * dbgreer joined the chat.
[16:25:37] * dbgreer left the chat.
[16:27:47] * Neustradamus left the chat.
[16:30:37] * dbgreer joined the chat.
[16:30:38] * dbgreer left the chat.
[16:31:32] * yuppinturic left the chat.
[16:33:07] * mpranj left the chat.
[16:35:37] * dbgreer joined the chat.
[16:42:04] * Neustradamus joined the chat.
[16:43:51] <rjhall> ..just catching up on the intereting conversation from a couple hours ago.
[16:43:51] * waqas left the chat.
[16:44:14] <rjhall> Does anything actually support xep-0258? I know it was mentioned in jest, but it's actually pretty relevant to what i do :)
[16:44:38] <dwd> rjhall, Yes, M-Link does on the server-side.
[16:44:55] <dwd> (Hence jabber.org could, in principle, although that's somewhat unlikely).
[16:45:00] <Kev> rjhall: and Swift does on the client, which was why I said.
[16:46:48] <rjhall> but swift is still just a twinkle in someone's eye , right?
[16:47:02] <rjhall> not actually, you know, available
[16:47:02] <rjhall> ;)
[16:47:15] <rjhall> I'll take a look at m-link
[16:47:38] <Kev> If you want a copy to test 258 support in M-Link against, I'm sure something can be arranged.
[16:47:49] <rjhall> oh - from isode. I know that server. thanks
[16:48:08] <Kev> FLOTs get boring pretty fast.
[16:48:40] <rjhall> Kev: the js charting library?
[16:48:50] <rjhall> Kev: or some other flot i don't know
[16:48:52] <dwd> rjhall, Yeah - Kev and I both work for Isode, on M-Link. Kev, for completeness, works on Swift.
[16:49:09] <dwd> rjhall, The wonderfully named "First Line Of Text" labelling "standard".
[16:49:15] <rjhall> ooohhh.... hi guys
[16:49:52] <rjhall> (that was an "ohh i see" oh, not a "ooo girlfriend" oh, fwiw)
[16:52:00] <rjhall> interesting. there's no labeling of users, though, right? To prevent a insufficiently high enough labeled user to join a higher labeled MUC
[16:52:22] <rjhall> actually, there's no hierarchy in labels at all
[16:52:49] <dwd> rjhall, Users have clearances, but oddly, those are beyond the scope of XEP-0258.
[16:53:00] <rjhall> hm. The primary and equivalent labels are supposed to represent multi-part labels?
[16:53:05] <rjhall> like US:NATO?
[16:53:09] <rjhall> or whatever
[16:53:18] <rjhall> or US:Eagle
[16:53:27] <dwd> rjhall, No, equivalents would reflect different policies.
[16:53:48] <dwd> rjhall, Last i spoke to Kurt, though, he seemed to think that XEP-0258's equivalences were in error.
[16:53:49] <rjhall> maybe i'l just go read it better now i'm over the initial excitement
[16:54:45] <rjhall> kev: what kinda timeframe do you think swift will get out?
[16:55:28] <rjhall> I have 120k xmpp users on this (proprietary software) server, and would like to do sanity testing - as it looks pretty cool and i suspect it might get high adoption.
[16:55:29] <dwd> rjhall, The labels themselves - which to a client are just blobs - would hold a complete label, so "SECRET REL:US REL:NATO NUCLEAR" or whatever. I just made that up, incidentally.
[16:56:14] <rjhall> dwd: ah. got it.
[16:59:07] * HAL left the chat.
[16:59:32] <Kev> rjhall: it's a good question.
[16:59:38] <Kev> We're much closer than we were, at least.
[17:01:08] * HAL joined the chat.
[17:01:11] <dbgreer> .
[17:01:28] * HAL left the chat.
[17:01:29] <dbgreer> weird, haven't been able to type anything in this room until now
[17:01:49] <dbgreer> question: I have a room that I've added a password to, but now I can't seem to remove it. How do I do that?
[17:01:56] <dbgreer> Going through a Pidgin client.
[17:02:07] <Kev> Delete the password in the room config dialog, save the dialog.
[17:02:19] <dbgreer> yeah, I tried that :)
[17:02:30] <dbgreer> opening it up shows it again. Perhaps a Pidgin bug?
[17:02:46] <Kev> Could be a server bug. Jabber.org?
[17:03:12] <dbgreer> yeah, another room on this server.
[17:03:28] * HAL joined the chat.
[17:04:21] <Kev> dbgreer: I'll throw myself a mail to check that on Monday.
[17:04:22] * jannatchopra@gmail.com/Meebo joined the chat.
[17:04:22] * jannatchopra@gmail.com/Meebo left the chat.
[17:04:47] <dbgreer> cool, thx. You need the room name in case you can't reproduce?
[17:04:54] <Kev> Won't hurt.
[17:05:00] <dbgreer> wah-nam
[17:05:29] <Kev> Ta.
[17:05:37] * waqas joined the chat.
[17:06:28] <dbgreer> drop me a line at dbgreer@gmail.com if you figure something out.
[17:09:40] * niekie joined the chat.
[17:24:11] * jkhii joined the chat.
[17:27:12] * dbgreer left the chat.
[17:33:34] * niekie left the chat.
[17:38:26] * evilotto joined the chat.
[17:39:10] * HAL joined the chat.
[17:39:15] * rjhall joined the chat.
[17:39:55] * treebilou joined the chat.
[17:40:10] * treebilou left the chat.
[17:41:32] * Neustradamus joined the chat.
[17:44:06] * sleek joined the chat.
[17:44:19] * the ♚ joined the chat.
[17:45:14] * Ricardo Rodríguez joined the chat.
[17:45:23] * ∞ joined the chat.
[17:49:58] * naw joined the chat.
[17:57:52] * Ilya joined the chat.
[17:59:07] * jkhii joined the chat.
[18:00:28] * Kev joined the chat.
[18:01:44] * alice joined the chat.
[18:03:09] * alice left the chat.
[18:03:19] * niekie joined the chat.
[18:07:11] * Flo joined the chat.
[18:22:51] * niekie left the chat.
[18:23:27] * Nÿco joined the chat.
[18:31:43] * mati joined the chat.
[18:43:54] * rabinsonrajakumar joined the chat.
[18:46:01] * mati left the chat.
[18:46:02] * Nÿco left the chat.
[18:46:25] * mati joined the chat.
[18:51:18] * rabinsonrajakumar left the chat.
[19:09:04] * waqas joined the chat.
[19:12:33] * rev.22 joined the chat.
[19:12:57] * Shahali304 joined the chat.
[19:14:02] * Shahali304 left the chat.
[19:33:33] * Amir joined the chat.
[19:33:38] <Amir> Helo
[19:35:14] * Amir left the chat.
[19:38:32] * FreeWorm joined the chat.
[19:40:32] * Amir joined the chat.
[19:40:39] <Amir> Helo
[19:41:21] * FreeWorm left the chat.
[19:42:55] <mati> hello
[19:44:39] <Amir> Hw ru mati
[19:44:47] <mati> what?
[19:44:58] <Amir> How ru
[19:45:05] <mati> ru?
[19:45:19] <mati> I am not russian
[19:45:22] <Amir> How are ru
[19:45:35] <Amir> M also m indian
[19:46:54] <Amir> Ru thr
[19:47:02] <mati> what on earth are you talking about?
[19:47:33] * Amir left the chat.
[19:49:05] * jkhii left the chat.
[19:53:35] * darkrain joined the chat.
[20:13:25] * Link Mauve joined the chat.
[20:39:20] * Abody.1994 joined the chat.
[20:39:46] <Abody.1994> Ru
[20:46:43] * naw left the chat.
[20:50:36] * Abody.1994 left the chat.
[20:58:57] * Ricardo Rodríguez left the chat.
[20:59:04] * Ricardo Rodríguez joined the chat.
[21:03:38] * arthur33378 joined the chat.
[21:08:36] * arthur33378 left the chat.
[21:09:13] * niekie joined the chat.
[21:11:02] * Tobias joined the chat.
[21:30:43] * Tanguy joined the chat.
[21:41:53] * Tobias left the chat.
[21:42:02] * Tobias joined the chat.
[21:44:32] * Tobias left the chat.
[21:44:41] * Tobias joined the chat.
[21:46:51] * Tobias left the chat.
[21:47:00] * Tobias joined the chat.
[21:48:05] * Tobias left the chat.
[21:48:11] * Tobias joined the chat.
[22:19:51] * jkhii joined the chat.
[22:19:58] * Flo left the chat.
[22:20:32] * jkhii left the chat.
[22:24:03] * jkhii joined the chat.
[22:32:03] * mpranj joined the chat.
[22:39:10] * Duuuark joined the chat.
[22:42:47] * mati left the chat.
[22:47:14] * akurei joined the chat.
[22:51:11] * michael.tolcher joined the chat.
[22:52:13] <michael.tolcher> Does any one know when it will be possible to register new accounts on jabber.org ?
[22:53:12] * michael.tolcher left the chat.
[22:53:15] * Mike T. joined the chat.
[22:54:01] * Mike T. left the chat.
[22:54:54] * Tobias left the chat.
[22:57:17] * waqas left the chat.
[22:59:32] * rjhall left the chat.
[23:00:05] * Duuuark left the chat.
[23:09:19] * mpranj left the chat.
[23:30:03] * Link Mauve left the chat.
[23:42:36] * yogdahale joined the chat.
[23:43:03] <yogdahale> Jta
[23:43:38] * yogdahale left the chat.
[00:29:20] * evilotto left the chat.
[00:30:48] * klk joined the chat.
[00:31:22] * klk left the chat.
[02:35:23] * Nick joined the chat.