jdev - 2026-02-21

Hello

I wrote a guide on how to use go-sendxmpp to switch fail2ban reporting (for example) to Jabber (instead of or in addition to email). I wanted to show it to you and ask your opinion on whether you think this guide could also be published on the Joinjabber tutorials page. It is in *.md format.

Hello

perhaps it's something that could be published in the xsf wiki?

I _think_ that joinjabber is more oriented towards first time users. I'm not sure if rather specific server admin settings is applicable there, but you should ask them.

https://chat.rxmpp.de:5443/upload/5680bcb646ac9f3fe800312b92506ad84e990a48/mYRTepD5rFfHnrxZCzNR/A_simple_XMPP_Jabber__integration_for_Fail2Ban__20260202_.md

ah I meant xsf wiki. just copied the text didn't alter joinjabber to xsf.

> I _think_ that joinjabber is more oriented towards first time users. I'm not sure if rather specific server admin settings is applicable there, but you should ask them. i mean i think joinjabber is planning to make unofficial XEPs ↺

so it would still be up their alley

If it's generic enough, then the XSF wiki is fine. I don't expect that to be found/read by many other people than ourselves, though. The reach is limited.

ok. is the *.md enough for you, or should i do something with it? (html?)

If that implies that you think I am going to process/publish it, then we have a difference of opinion.

I don't see any objections to add it to any of the locations that you mentioned, but I'm not volunteering to add them there myself.

isn't the xmpp wiki dead

I am happy to create a wiki account for you if you don't have one yet, but I have no interest in explicitly collaborating on this. I have way too many pet projects already 😁

> isn't the xmpp wiki dead No, not at all? We use it all the time. Why do you think that?

the "recent changes" page has like 5 edits, most of them being from you :P

i mean i get it, it's small

I see it more as a XSF internal thing, and that shows. It is badly maintained and isn't really organised.

We use it at least every quarter for the membership vote applications. It's used to organise events. I started recording board meeting notes there.

> ok. is the *.md enough for you, or should i do something with it? (html?) also btw, you have to rewrite your text to wikitext if you're planning to publish it in XSF wiki ↺

But I consider it more as a scratchpad than an official publication platform.

i don't know if there's a markdown to wikitext converter

> But I consider it more as a scratchpad than an official publication platform. i wonder, what do you think of unofficial XEPs? ↺

being, i guess, one of the key people in XSF

Importantly: I'm not the boss of anything. Anyone can be on Board. I'm maybe more vocal than some others, but that doesn't imply any seniority.

well sure, i didn't really assume that :P

I'm torn on unofficial XEPs. That particular name is bad (but that's besides the point)

one of the reasons people make them are that they don't have to put their real identity on it

or transfer copyright to the XSF to get it published

I'm excited for the application of the XMPP technology to be so wide that there's an apparent desire to have additional organization around it. I'm not happy about fragmentation of the governance of the open standard.

Those two arguments are new to me. If they are a problem for some to publish open standard extensions, then it would be good to see that discussed, before a split of governance was created (maybe that discussion was had, but I'm not aware of it)

If there's an issue with the XSF's copyright, then I think that would be good to discuss. As I see things, that is explicitly designed to ensure that the standards that are published remain 'open' to anyone.

I do think that is the right _goal_ which I suspect is commonly shared. If the _means_ is somehow objectable to someone, I'd love to understand the reasoning behind that.

As for using real names: I'm not sure if that's a requirement to publish a XEP with the XSF? I'm not sure what the objections to doing that are. I can imagine that in some cases, those can certainly be important. In cases where it's more a matter of personal preference, then there's a counter-argument that using real names gives some accountability/validity to published works. I currently don't feel particularly strong either way (but am open to be convinced one way or the other).

> As for using real names: I'm not sure if that's a requirement to publish a XEP with the XSF? I'm not sure what the objections to doing that are. I can imagine that in some cases, those can certainly be important. In cases where it's more a matter of personal preference, then there's a counter-argument that using real names gives some accountability/validity to published works. I currently don't feel particularly strong either way (but am open to be convinced one way or the other). you need to transfer copyright to XSF, which inherently means you need to leak your real identity in a way ↺

Does it? I can't immediately see that, other than that you'd expose whatever handle you use through the submission mechanism. I don't know of any instances where the XSF has actively tried to verify the identity of a person submitting a XEP to the inbox (which is done through mail or through a PR). I _think_ that there's a GitHub CLA automation thing. To me, that's all pretty light weight, but if it's objectionable to some, then I think that alternatives are certainly discussable (e.g. disclosure of the publisher's identity only to the Editor of the XSF, or somesuch)

In any case, the kind of data that the XSF requires is something that I expect to be the bare minimum that _any_ organisation that wishes to publish commonly-accepted open standards would need.

So that in itself to me is a surprising reason to want to set up a different organization.

Anyways, if there's something to be improved in the XSF's procedures, I would love to hear about that. As I see it now, it is attempting to be as light-weight as possible. If we can improve on that, all the better.

also sometimes you can't really transfer copyright where you are

Like what, for example?

countries where there is barely any copyright law

How is that a problem to submit your work to the XSF saying 'here, this is yours to govern now' ?

because the state of the copyright is legally questionable

like without due process, does the original writer still own it? or does XSF own it?

The only reason that I know of that the XSF requires a sign-over of copyright, is to prevent having a situation where down the road, someone starts requiring things (money, influence) because they claim to be the copywright holder of a XEP that is now being used by third parties, as an open standard.

honestly, is giving it up to the public domain good enough?

do i really have to transfer copyright

I will readily admit that I don't know enough of the details to tell you that. Maybe it is.

also i would say, software patents are a bit of a blindspot there

_If_ it is, that would be an interesting optimization to discuss.

what if the XEP covers something which is patented

then they could transfer the copyright of the XEP to XSF, but not the patents

and then start requiring money, whatever from third parties implementing it

Oh, I think that there are a gazillion blind spots. I don't think that lawyers were involved in the last decade, and I'm hoping that we can keep it that way - because even if they are, there still will be other blindspots or holes. I don't expect that there is _any_ type of way that you can organize the governance of a open standards process (including the inbox etc), that does not have _any_ of such blind spots.

I think that what the XSF has in place is a reasonable thing, that has at least proven over time that it's somewhat robust (there haven't been lawsuits yet)

Is it 100% the very best solution that there can be? Probably not - but I don't think a 100% correct solution can exist at all. There are to many conflicting laws, juristictions, etc, etc for that to be possible.

If people feel strongly about having a different type of governance so bad that they'd prefer to have their own organisation, they're obviously absolutely free to set that all up. There surely are valid concerns that could be addressed in different ways, but if the leads to an overall better form of governance - it seems very experimental to me. Especially if the purpose of this would be to make something more 'open', I'd rather see if we can tweak the XSF's policies - as those are a result of many people trying to make it as open as possible for many years.

My worry is that it just leads to fragmentation without any benefit to the community.

wow that data uri spec is bad

> one of the reasons people make them are that they don't have to put their real identity on it Do you have an example of such an "unofficial xep"? ↺

> one of the reasons people make them are that they don't have to put their real identity on it Cynthia: just make up any vaguely real sounding name and don't mention it, no one will bat an eye ↺

like MJ Rathbun *ducks*

Maybe do not write a blog post with personal attacks when the XEP gets rejected though :)

(that whole deal is _wild_)

really is, for those that don't know: https://www.heise.de/en/news/WTF-AI-Agent-Publicly-Attacks-Developer-After-Code-Change-Rejected-11176610.html

singpolyma, i see a weird thing, all your messages recently end with a newline

and its just your messages which makes me think this is likely not something in Gajim

and i can also tell you when it started, on 19-FEB

befor that your messages never ended with a newline ✏

before that your messages never ended with a newline ✏

Thanks. I made a change to the editor on my iOS app I bet the new one adds a newline. I'll check it.

yeah I see this too. from jabber.el, ``` (:muc-foreign (message ((xml:lang . "en") (to . "wgreenhouse@hmm.st/Emacs") (from . "jdev@muc.xmpp.org/singpolyma") (type . "groupchat") (id . "1EF11773-2F35-4F95-8F81-812B75BA0A91")) (fallback ((xmlns . "urn:xmpp:fallback:0") (for . "urn:xmpp:reply:0")) (body ((start . "0") (end . "97")))) (reply ((xmlns . "urn:xmpp:reply:0") (to . "jdev@muc.xmpp.org/Cynthia") (id . "2026-02-21-2316b69a202e1896"))) (html ((xmlns . "http://jabber.org/protocol/xhtml-im")) (body ((xmlns . "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml")) (p nil "Do you have an example of such an \"unofficial xep\"?"))) (occupant-id ((xmlns . "urn:xmpp:occupant-id:0") (id . "n6yAmftuthaHwtUpgo0dr+mFnc+asBQ1cHNAb+fqdMo="))) (stanza-id ((xmlns . "urn:xmpp:sid:0") (id . "2026-02-21-06751bdea7d529e3") (by . "jdev@muc.xmpp.org"))) (body nil "> one of the reasons people make them are that they don't have to put their real identity on it\n\nDo you have an example of such an \"unofficial xep\"?\n")) :time (27033 44356 737756 983000)) ```

Interesting you see no trailing newline in the XHTML but only in the plain text. I thanks that helps

yeah I'm not currently rendering xhtml-im so in this case it was noticeable because the fallback got rendered