Logs for jabber

Show join/part/nick changes:

[05:35:31] * mpranj joined the chat.
[05:36:05] * marseille joined the chat.
[06:05:23] * mpranj left the chat.
[06:07:29] * niekie left the chat.
[06:44:57] * yuppinturic joined the chat.
[06:45:17] * yuppinturic left the chat.
[06:47:41] * yuppinturic joined the chat.
[06:52:36] * jprieur joined the chat.
[06:52:37] * jprieur left the chat.
[07:09:18] * HedgeMage left the chat.
[07:13:26] * Leprinc1987 joined the chat.
[07:13:26] * Leprinc1987 left the chat.
[07:19:37] * Mati joined the chat.
[07:25:54] * Lastwebpage joined the chat.
[07:31:28] * Mati left the chat.
[07:31:28] * Mati joined the chat.
[07:35:13] * jprieur joined the chat.
[07:35:15] * jprieur left the chat.
[07:39:11] * jprieur joined the chat.
[07:39:16] * jprieur left the chat.
[08:03:20] * naw joined the chat.
[08:10:31] * Tobias joined the chat.
[08:27:24] * olivir joined the chat.
[08:27:24] * olivir left the chat.
[08:27:25] * olivir joined the chat.
[08:27:25] * olivir left the chat.
[08:31:14] * Leprinc1987 joined the chat.
[08:31:15] * Leprinc1987 left the chat.
[08:37:36] * Nÿco joined the chat.
[08:38:41] * mpranj joined the chat.
[08:44:36] * mpranj left the chat.
[08:55:01] * Mati left the chat.
[09:02:55] * Testoo joined the chat.
[09:04:00] * Testoo left the chat.
[09:26:36] * Nÿco left the chat.
[09:27:58] * naw left the chat.
[09:47:35] * treebilou joined the chat.
[09:48:31] * treebilou left the chat.
[09:49:03] * treebilou joined the chat.
[09:55:31] * Mati joined the chat.
[10:04:07] * Mati left the chat.
[10:04:07] * Mati joined the chat.
[10:37:29] * mpranj joined the chat.
[10:42:42] * mpranj left the chat.
[10:46:01] * treebilou left the chat.
[10:50:16] * alice joined the chat.
[10:53:56] * Tobias left the chat.
[11:10:34] * ceu.tial7 joined the chat.
[11:10:35] * ceu.tial7 left the chat.
[11:15:05] * ceu.tial7 joined the chat.
[11:16:41] * Tobias joined the chat.
[11:59:02] * marseille left the chat.
[12:04:23] * ceu.tial7 left the chat.
[12:10:20] * Mati left the chat.
[12:20:46] * Mati joined the chat.
[12:25:13] * marseille joined the chat.
[12:26:40] * treebilou joined the chat.
[12:40:22] * marseille left the chat.
[12:40:34] * marseille joined the chat.
[12:41:43] * marseille left the chat.
[12:42:07] * marseille joined the chat.
[12:56:53] * Mati left the chat.
[13:16:50] * HedgeMage joined the chat.
[13:17:10] * Mati joined the chat.
[13:17:48] * polk28559 joined the chat.
[13:18:36] <polk28559> help I need trasport but my server doesn't have it
[13:19:12] * Leprinc1987 joined the chat.
[13:19:12] * Leprinc1987 left the chat.
[13:19:39] * alice left the chat.
[13:20:09] * Mati left the chat.
[13:20:17] * Mati joined the chat.
[13:22:10] * polk28559 left the chat.
[13:22:16] * madison38604 joined the chat.
[13:26:23] * madison38604 left the chat.
[13:26:55] * mail joined the chat.
[13:29:17] <mail> Does this mean I need to adjust my nickname in my addressbook entry (vcard used by iChat)?
[13:29:43] <Kev> "this"?
[13:29:49] <Tanguy> Does *what* mean that?
[13:30:10] <mail> Sorry :-P Saw my nickname amongst the others.
[13:30:28] <Kev> Most likely it's using the node part of your JID.
[13:30:56] <mail> It is strange, even in MUC iChat won't let me specify one separately.
[13:31:17] <Kev> iChat isn't the most obvious of XMPP clienst.
[13:31:20] <Kev> *clients
[13:31:58] <mail> Well anyway, what I wanted to know was, if anybody knows ... I have pymsnt installed, and only iChat for a client. Is there a way to handle in-band registration from the server? A script or tool or modify the database of pymsnt by hand?
[13:32:02] * mckinley32550 joined the chat.
[13:32:09] * mckinley32550 left the chat.
[13:32:32] <Kev> By far the easiest thing is going to be to just use Psi for the registration.
[13:32:41] <Kev> You can run it without even removing it from the .dmg if you want.
[13:33:16] <mail> The problem: psi uses QT, and I'm blind. QT is not particularly conducive to Apple's accessibility APIs ...
[13:33:55] <mail> Also I will have to do this for users besides me. They wouldn't install Psi.
[13:35:30] <Kev> I guess you'll need to set up presence subscriptions on the xmpp server, and then populate the account details in pymsn-t.
[13:35:49] <Kev> I guess you'll need to the vendors of the server, and pymsn-t for that.
[13:35:50] <Kev> Sorry.
[13:36:21] <mail> Yep. Thanks anyway.
[13:40:23] * niekie joined the chat.
[13:41:42] <niekie> Hello everyone :-)
[13:42:26] <Kev> Hey niekie.
[13:42:50] <niekie> Hey Kev!
[13:48:53] * dennis joined the chat.
[13:48:59] <dennis> Hello!
[13:49:33] <dennis> Where in RFC 3920/3921 is defined which JID each party (server/client) shall use and be addressed with?
[13:49:35] * mpranj joined the chat.
[13:50:32] <mail> Dennis, why should it?
[13:50:56] <dennis> I found several mentions of resource binding, etc, but no specification of what contents of to/from shall result in delivery to which end.
[13:51:23] <mail> It only says that JIDs need not be full addresses, that domains are valid as JIDs, which is about right.
[13:51:33] <dennis> mail: Because that's imo a requirement. If the specification does not not specify who is who, how shall they ever communicate without problems?
[13:52:40] <dennis> mail: Yes, I saw the part where its written what JIDs are valid. But I did not see explicitly written where a message to a JID of form X shall be delivered.
[13:54:03] <mail> Dennis, /resource specifies the resource, let me see if I can read things differently ...
[13:54:33] <Kev> dennis: it's in there, honest.
[13:54:46] <dennis> I'm having the case where a client binds as marcus/home, the server tells him to use marcus/HASH instead, and then there are messages coming from the server to john.
[13:54:55] <dennis> Kev: I believe you its in there. I just cant find it.
[13:55:13] <Kev> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-xmpp-3920bis-13#section-10
[13:55:14] <dennis> So I would like to figure out which part of the spec its exactly violating, so that they can properly fix it.
[13:55:49] <Kev> Coming to john, or to marcus/john?
[13:56:12] <Kev> I also assume you're really binding as marcus@server/home.
[13:57:36] <dennis> Yes, I left out the @server part.
[13:58:03] <dennis> Kev: I assume you mean specifically section 10.5?
[13:58:10] <Kev> For local delivery, yes.
[13:58:28] * mpranj left the chat.
[14:02:37] <dennis> Sry, I was confusing you before. Client connects as user@domain, tries to bind to resource, receives a bind to HASH@domain/resource, but the server sends messages to user@domain/resource.
[14:03:17] <Kev> Ah, that's just straight wrong, then :)
[14:03:33] <mail> Dennis, routing here is unambiguous. So something must be wrong somewhere...
[14:03:33] <dennis> But where is it defined that its wrong?
[14:04:06] <Kev> o For a message stanza, if there exists at least one connected resource for the account the server SHOULD deliver it to at least one of the connected resources. If there exists no connected resource, the server MUST either (a) store the message offline for delivery when the account next has a connected resource or (b) return a <service-unavailable/> stanza error.
[14:04:26] <Kev> There are no connected resources for the account "user@domain/resource", so the message should be handled as described.
[14:04:46] <dennis> So <bind/> defines who is "connected"?
[14:04:49] <Kev> *account user@domain, rather.
[14:05:14] <Tobias> dennis: like this, right: http://pastebin.com/ZbznmE2q
[14:05:30] <Kev> " After a client has bound a resource to the stream, it is referred to as a "connected resource". A server SHOULD allow an entity to maintain multiple connected resources simultaneously, where each connected resource is associated with a distinct XML stream and differentiated from the other connected resources by a distinct resourcepart."
[14:05:54] <Kev> So yes, it's a connected resource after resource binding.
[14:07:09] <dennis> That's quoted from a newer version of the RFC?
[14:07:23] <dennis> I cant find these strings in http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3920.txt
[14:08:35] <Kev> Look in the link I gave :)
[14:10:08] <dennis> Yep, only noticed that "bis-13" part now.
[14:11:08] <mail> Presumably, unbound resources are exactly like resourceless connections?
[14:11:23] <mail> (If the server did not require it.)
[14:12:22] <Kev> mail: In what sense?
[14:13:01] <Kev> You must perform resource binding before you're allowed to do (almost) anything.
[14:13:01] <mail> If the server has to fall back and route messages when there are no connected resources, it would route them to an unbound client, yes?
[14:13:07] <Kev> No.
[14:13:22] <mail> Okay, so connection really *does* imply binding.
[14:13:34] <Kev> Yes, as the text I pasted above said :)
[14:17:48] <mail> So in other words it's reasonable for clients to be given the choice to bind a resource.
[14:18:08] <mail> As section 7 of 3920 suggests.
[14:18:51] <Kev> You could not bind a resource, but there's almost nothing useful you can do unless you do.
[14:19:05] * marseille left the chat.
[14:19:13] <dennis> Where does RFC 3920 define what "account" means?
[14:19:14] <Kev> I don't think "After a client authenticates with a server, it MUST bind a specific resource to the stream so that the server can properly address the client." Leaves very much up to choice.
[14:19:22] * marseille joined the chat.
[14:19:24] <mail> OK. I will have to finish before I can start. :-)
[14:20:18] <Kev> dennis: I think the bit you want about using the JID you bind to is "That is, there MUST be an XMPP resource associated with the bare JID (<localpart@domainpart>) of the client, so that the address for use over that stream is a full JID of the form <localpart@domainpart/resource> (including the resourcepart)."
[14:20:23] <dennis> There really should be a glossary, and words appearing there should be highlighted...
[14:20:52] <dennis> thx
[14:23:45] <dennis> Hm, I think they (SVZ) just bent the RFC so far that there can be multiple "localpart"s refering to the same connected resource.
[14:24:29] <Tobias> dennis: and ignoring all the examples in the RFC :)
[14:24:33] <mail> Dennis, that appears to be wrong. :-)
[14:24:52] <dennis> I mean... what does "associated with the bare JID" mean... If they define that to "its like that in our database", then they're perfectly conforming, imo.
[14:25:32] <dennis> Yes, to the sane mind it appears to be wrong. But if they're some kind of lawyers, used to bending texts so that they fit their cause, then it's all legal...
[14:25:32] <Kev> dennis: that would be the second half of the sentence where it explains what it means.
[14:27:44] <Tobias> dennis: i highly doubt they implemented a brand new XMPP server
[14:30:28] <mail> I have been studying XMPP more closely because I have a suspicion that I will need to "Implement" a small client. Hopefully I can cut a lot of corners, though.
[14:33:47] <mail> OK, I'm off for now. Cheers.
[14:33:49] * mail left the chat.
[14:39:35] <dennis> Kev, mail, Tobias: Thanks for your help and explanations.
[14:39:42] * marseille left the chat.
[14:39:45] <dennis> Mail is sent, lets hope they understand what I'm saying...
[14:39:56] * marseille joined the chat.
[14:40:00] <Tobias> heh
[14:40:12] * marseille left the chat.
[14:40:23] <Tobias> would be pleasantly surprised if they fix that
[14:40:37] * marseille joined the chat.
[14:40:54] <dennis> It should be damn simple... They'd just need to change USER@ in every function addressing someone to HASH@.
[14:41:15] <dennis> grep and sed should do most of the job. ;)
[14:41:30] <Tobias> doubt it's that easy
[14:41:44] <Tobias> and the other way around would be more user friendly
[14:41:56] <Tobias> using the username instead of hash
[14:41:58] <dennis> Facebook does something similar with userids vs shortnames.
[14:42:13] <dennis> Everyone in my roster has userid@, but the server addresses me as shortname@.
[14:42:23] <Tobias> yeah
[14:42:36] <Tobias> but you're sighted in as username@
[14:42:45] <Tobias> *signed
[14:43:10] <dennis> if we mean the same with username and shortname, then yes.
[14:43:25] <Tobias> and that's also returned on binding and used for roster get response
[14:43:40] <Tobias> but yeah..fb users in rosters are all number@...
[14:43:54] <dennis> No clue why they dont directly bind the client to userid@, just as they apparetly treat everyone else in the roster.
[14:44:13] <dennis> (FB)
[14:45:11] <dennis> The idea of transfering vcards (or images) out of stream (as VZ does), seems quite nice though.
[14:45:36] <dennis> Could probably save some bandwidth in the XMPP servers.
[14:45:55] <Tobias> that's just for convenience for their webclient
[14:46:07] <Tobias> and has obvious privacy issues
[14:46:09] <dennis> Does XMPP define such a method via a XEP, too?
[14:46:14] <Tobias> nope
[14:46:35] <dennis> Tobias: You mean when someone guesses the http:// url to a user's image?
[14:46:41] <Tobias> XEP-0054 does cover vcard stuff
[14:46:43] <Tobias> dennis: yup
[14:49:30] <dennis> Doesnt HTTP Auth allow forms of external authentication? Hence the client could auth to the XMPP service, get a token, and use that to proof authorisation to the HTTP server.
[14:50:05] <dennis> Though that would probably defeat the simplicity of a static http service...
[15:01:35] * Leprinc1987 joined the chat.
[15:01:35] * Leprinc1987 left the chat.
[15:09:10] <dennis> gtg, bye!
[15:09:11] * dennis left the chat.
[15:18:26] * stpeter joined the chat.
[15:22:11] * whatever joined the chat.
[15:28:06] * whatever left the chat.
[15:28:06] * whatever joined the chat.
[15:45:30] * whatever left the chat.
[15:46:00] * niekie left the chat.
[15:46:16] * whatever joined the chat.
[15:46:48] * niekie joined the chat.
[15:54:39] * Duuuark joined the chat.
[15:54:47] * Lastwebpage left the chat.
[15:58:29] * Z_God joined the chat.
[16:10:37] * marseille left the chat.
[16:26:35] * evilotto joined the chat.
[16:31:57] * MattJ joined the chat.
[16:42:36] * Lastwebpage joined the chat.
[16:53:24] * Tobias left the chat.
[16:55:21] * Tobias joined the chat.
[17:09:48] * saviyo2 joined the chat.
[17:09:48] * saviyo2 left the chat.
[17:10:08] * saviyo2 joined the chat.
[17:10:08] * saviyo2 left the chat.
[17:10:56] * saviyo joined the chat.
[17:10:56] * saviyo in now known as saviyo2.
[17:10:56] * saviyo2 left the chat.
[17:15:09] * saviyo2 joined the chat.
[17:15:09] * saviyo2 in now known as saviyo.
[17:15:09] * saviyo left the chat.
[17:18:45] * saviyo joined the chat.
[17:18:45] * saviyo left the chat.
[17:22:40] * naw joined the chat.
[17:23:05] * Kev left the chat.
[17:23:20] * Kev joined the chat.
[17:23:20] * naw left the chat.
[17:37:19] * marseille joined the chat.
[17:47:26] * marseille left the chat.
[17:50:16] * marseille joined the chat.
[18:23:31] * gsoto joined the chat.
[18:25:13] * Sanek. joined the chat.
[18:25:33] * Sanek. left the chat.
[18:31:29] * yuppinturic left the chat.
[18:42:08] <Creation> jesus what spam
[18:42:31] <Kev> Creation?
[18:43:05] <MattJ> Kev, I'm guessing Creation is using a client that shows status messages in the MUC log, as I am
[18:43:07] <Creation> joins and parts of saviyo
[18:43:18] <Kev> "Sanek., marseille, naw and yuppinturic have left the room and Sanek., gsoto and marseille have joined the room."
[18:43:20] <Kev> <3 Swift.
[18:43:23] <MattJ> :)
[18:43:30] <Creation> i use gajim
[18:43:48] <marseille> ?
[18:46:05] * sdfgsadf joined the chat.
[18:46:21] * sdfgsadf left the chat.
[19:03:53] * brianhubbell joined the chat.
[19:04:38] * brianhubbell left the chat.
[19:04:42] * Duuuark left the chat.
[19:05:55] * brianhubbell joined the chat.
[19:06:02] * brianhubbell left the chat.
[19:07:08] * Creation left the chat.
[19:18:19] * Duuuark joined the chat.
[19:21:51] * marseille left the chat.
[19:32:58] * marseille joined the chat.
[19:36:22] * cool.kunalj joined the chat.
[19:36:22] * cool.kunalj left the chat.
[19:45:42] * stpeter left the chat.
[19:52:03] * gichin.gamarra@gmail.com/Meebo joined the chat.
[19:52:03] * gichin.gamarra@gmail.com/Meebo left the chat.
[19:53:39] * gichin.gamarra@gmail.com/Meebo joined the chat.
[19:56:28] * gichin.gamarra@gmail.com/Meebo left the chat.
[19:56:34] * gichin.gamarra@gmail.com/Meebo joined the chat.
[19:56:34] * gichin.gamarra@gmail.com/Meebo left the chat.
[19:58:40] * gichin.gamarra@gmail.com/Meebo joined the chat.
[19:59:10] <gichin.gamarra@gmail.com/Meebo> ?
[20:01:32] * Duuuark left the chat.
[20:02:54] * whatever left the chat.
[20:05:26] * whatever joined the chat.
[20:05:50] * waqas joined the chat.
[20:06:02] * naw joined the chat.
[20:10:26] * gichin.gamarra@gmail.com/Meebo left the chat.
[20:16:07] * cool.kunalj joined the chat.
[20:16:07] * cool.kunalj left the chat.
[20:18:04] * cool.kunalj joined the chat.
[20:18:04] * cool.kunalj left the chat.
[20:18:06] * cool.kunalj joined the chat.
[20:18:06] * cool.kunalj left the chat.
[20:34:11] * Leprinc1987 joined the chat.
[20:34:11] * Leprinc1987 left the chat.
[21:36:39] * ∞ left the chat.
[21:36:41] * ∞ joined the chat.
[21:41:13] * Neustradamus left the chat.
[21:42:49] * bittin joined the chat.
[21:45:01] * Neustradamus joined the chat.
[21:54:08] * Z_God left the chat.
[22:06:50] * Mati left the chat.
[22:12:15] * polk56982 joined the chat.
[22:14:00] * lincoln46115 joined the chat.
[22:15:14] * polk56982 left the chat.
[22:16:59] * lincoln46115 left the chat.
[22:40:21] * Tobias left the chat.
[22:47:54] * Tobias joined the chat.
[23:08:08] * Tobias left the chat.
[23:56:19] * Lastwebpage left the chat.
[23:59:35] * evilotto left the chat.
[00:06:14] * gsoto left the chat.
[00:13:53] * naw left the chat.
[00:23:42] * waqas left the chat.
[00:29:03] * MattJ left the chat.
[00:38:45] * Junaidpkd2 joined the chat.
[00:38:45] * Junaidpkd2 left the chat.
[00:39:00] * Junaidpkd2 joined the chat.
[00:39:00] * Junaidpkd2 left the chat.
[01:27:11] * jyf joined the chat.
[01:27:11] * jyf left the chat.
[02:09:38] * taylor40511 joined the chat.
[02:11:34] <taylor40511> Now I am studying the source code of jabberd2, how can I start?
[03:11:35] * taylor40511 left the chat.
[03:21:06] * bittin left the chat.
[03:23:49] * bittin joined the chat.
[03:25:15] * zachlr left the chat.
[04:07:32] * Sanek. joined the chat.
[04:08:31] * Sanek. left the chat.