jdev - 2024-08-14

  1. dwd

    Zash / MattJ, where does one go to suggest a possible bug in Prosody? It appears as if it rejects EXTERNAL SASL requests with `malformed-request` unless an authorization identifier is included in the initial-response data, and that's wrong (IMHO) on two counts - first it shouldn't need that anyway (it can default from the stream from), and secondly if it really wants it it can just send an empty <challenge/>, since the initial-response is always optional.

  2. dwd

    (I was wondering why all servers insist on telling me who they are in the I-R, and now I know!)

  3. jonas’

    dwd, https://issues.prosody.im/

  4. dwd

    Oh, wait, unless it's my bug. Let me check if I need an '=' there or not.

  5. jonas’

    that would indicate an initial-response with no data (as opposed to an absent initial-response)

  6. dwd

    Yeah, its OK either way. Sending anything is MAY, so as you say, this is an absent initial response (which is optional, so OK), and not an empty one (also OK).

  7. jonas’

    xmpp:prosody@conference.prosody.im?join is another place to discuss potential prosody issues, but if you're certain that you're looking at a spec violation, then you can just file an issue straight away, I'd say.

  8. dwd

    I think it is a spec. Although I think Metre should probably send a full authzid anyway, since everyone else is.

  9. Zash

    Is this s2s SASL EXTERNAL ?

  10. dwd

    Yep. I have tried to log a bug, awaiting an email now.

  11. dwd

    Zash, Here: https://hg.prosody.im/0.12/file/tip/plugins/mod_saslauth.lua#l166

  12. ubq323

    hi. i'm adding support for XEP-0066 out-of-bound attachments in a piece of software. i've noticed that across at least 2 clients (i've tested on gajim and conversations), the file attachment thing only displays if the url inside the <x><url>...</url></x> and the message content inside the <body> match exactly. this isn't documented anywhere in the XEP, so i'm wondering what's happening here?

  13. singpolyma

    It's just something conversations decided to do and some other clients copied them. It's a bad idea IMO and if you want something like that these days we have the fallback indication xep

  14. ubq323

    i see, any idea why conversations decided to do that?

  15. ubq323

    (unrelated: the link to this channel on the xmpp.org website is typoed as jev@ instead of jdev@)

  16. singpolyma

    > i see, any idea why conversations decided to do that? Probably because fallback xep didn't exist. Though I'm not sure why they ignore messages with just oob ↺

  17. ubq323

    what is the fallback xep exactly?

  18. ubq323

    is that to do with displaying the url link normally to clients that don't support the attachment thing?

  19. singpolyma

    Right

  20. singpolyma

    https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0428.html

  21. ubq323

    so using the fallback spec, you'd have the link in the body, and then use the fallback element to contain the oob?