jdev - 2025-12-24

Did we dicuss, sending a automatic spam report to the remote abuse address?

currently in Gajim if i ban a user, i can chose to moderate all the messages, what if i add a checkbox that if checked, gathers the abuse xmpp adress and sends a automated message to the admin, with the content of one example message and the full jid of the spammer?

would this be considered useful? or would there be a problem with that

message would be sent only on user interaction, e.g. checking the box and confirming

lovetox, that's somewhat covered by XEP-0377 (currently under last call)

Moving this to stable without a single example how to report a message as spam is wild

The example with blocking is just not applicable to MUCs where we have the most annoying spam

But i will add my concerns in the last call response then

lovetox, stable just means draft, in a way that people will be less critical of.

If you have changes to make, that’s totally still possible.

the XEP limits its scope to blocking, and as such its a solution in that scope, but we definitly need more

I don't think this XEP intends to be a one-size-fits-all solution - instead, it tries to add an easy-to-use option to a mechanism already in use. I was just latching on to your "didn't we discuss this somewhere" question.

yes i noticed that the title of the XEP does not fit to the introduction

this mislead me

I just write up my comments for the last call

> the XEP limits its scope to blocking, and as such its a solution in that scope, but we definitly need more it doesn't limit its scope there. but that's the currently only supported case by anyone so it's used in the example. I think with MUC we might be able to do pure reporting ("flag this message") but I haven't had time to write the server module yet ↺

but yes https://modules.prosody.im/mod_report_forward.html is what I use for this "send to admin" purpose

singpolyma: the scope is clearly reduced to blocking

This specification extends the blocking command to optionally provide an abuse report.

it defines a new syntax to be used in abuse report contexts and the first use case identified is as part of blocking

No that's not what this says

You clearly think every text can afterwards changed and goals can be extended

But that's not what we vote in a last call for example

Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction and requirements?

Yes it does. Does it solve the the problem of a missing base spec which can be applied to multiple contexts where reporting is needed? I would say definitely not. But that is not relevant because it's not a goal in the introduction. ✏

it's always been the goal when discussed and it clearly seems solved by the text of the XEP. but if you think we need to make the wording clearer I'm obviously open to that happeneing

I already sent my feedback to the list

We can only judge the content of the XEP in last call, not what may have been discussed somewhere at some point

sure. obviously we disagree about what the XEP says as currently written which is enough reason to indicate it can be clarified

Can you point to the sentences in the XEP which give you that interpretation, maybe I missed them

How do I get started with jabber development?

Any good youtube vids?

singpolyma: or let's move discussion to the list, I'm away for today.

yeah. I fully agree with you that the current introduction does lend itself to thinking this is just about blocking

of course that still doesn't prevent reusing in other xeps. we should always reuse an existing namespace where possible, from any xep or even not from a xep. But saying it much more explicitly would make the XEP much better I fully agree

Do you guys use Linux?

Is it required for development? ✏

Depends on what you develop

Jabber apps

Depends on the jabber app :P

But I wouldn't say Linux is required as a general principle

Is '[' , ']' part of the domainpart, in ipv6 based xmpp server? Prosody service works with "VirtualHost "[my-ipv6]"", xmpp clients don't like connect to my server. I don't understand how it works. Please help. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6122#section-2.1 "... note well that reuse of the IP-literal rule from RFC 3986 implies that IPv6 addresses are enclosed in square brackets (i.e., beginning with '[' and ending with ']')".

I generated selfo signed certificate for my ipv6 server, and I added the self generated CA to the system CA store

probably you don't want to use a raw ip but a domain name of some kind?

probably. If I can make clients work without domain I would save money

> Is '[' , ']' part of the domainpart, in ipv6 based xmpp server? Prosody service works with "VirtualHost "[my-ipv6]"", xmpp clients don't like connect to my server. I don't understand how it works. Please help. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6122#section-2.1 "... note well that reuse of the IP-literal rule from RFC 3986 implies that IPv6 addresses are enclosed in square brackets (i.e., beginning with '[' and ending with ']')". In XMPP, the domainpart can include an IPv6 address, but it must be enclosed in square brackets. Therefore, '[' and ']' are indeed part of the domainpart when specifying an IPv6 address. IETF hjp.at ↺

👍

You can get free DNS name lots of places. Dynamic DNS services etc.

👍