XMPP Service Operators - 2022-09-17


  1. Martin

    Where is this curated server list hosted that is used by e.g. kaidan?

  2. millesimus

    https://providers.xmpp.net This one, Martin?

  3. Martin

    millesimus: thx

  4. Menel

    Nah. That one lists a lot of very good servers under not recommended.

  5. millesimus

    I agree.

  6. Martin

    Not sure if it makes sense to recommend servers that are listed on the jabberspam blacklist. Users picking those might be disappointed if they can't talk to their friends on other servers.

  7. Menel

    That's a very very good point 😄

  8. root

    Martin: seems providers.xmpp.net need to add some new criteria to their ranking list? If you are on the soam list, automatic F.

  9. Martin

    Would make sense but I don't know what the operators of this list think about it.

  10. Menel

    Certainly more relevant then, they not listing the upload size

  11. Martin

    emus: ^

  12. Martin

    emus: melvo: ^

  13. Maranda

    The impressum requires also info about support contact, hosting type (if applicable), data safety / retention, DR/RT policies (disaster recovery / recovery time) etc.

  14. Maranda

    So mostly those services do not provide the relevant infos on the service site?

  15. emus

    Martin: What exactly? and Which server is a spammer we list?

  16. Martin

    https://github.com/JabberSPAM/blacklist/blob/master/blacklist.txt#L2

  17. Martin

    I think listing servers (which is sort of recommending) which might very limited in federation as they appear on the blocklist doesn't make much sense.

  18. Maranda

    Martin it's listed as D...

  19. Maranda

    "Providers in this category cannot or should not be used for registration."

  20. Martin

    Exactly, I think it should not be listed at all. In D it is listed on the same level as conversations.im…

  21. emus

    The key statement is automated registration. We can only recommend servers if such information is available as a reference (anything else is random). If we approach a fire and forget recommendation principle with this attempt to recommend servers which are suitable for unaware and non-tech-savvy users we need data to base evaluation on and second some level of what expectation a first XMPP experience should look like (compliance, support, and yes, upload sizes etc). But all this is under discussion and still development

  22. emus

    Last but not least, the raw list can be applied and own filters. However, we don't recommend this.

  23. melvo

    > Certainly more relevant then, they not listing the upload size Please have a look at a provider's detail page. You will find the limits there.

  24. emus

    There should rather be a spammer criteria, than not listing I believe

  25. melvo

    As emus said, all your suggestions are already on their way.

  26. melvo

    Here is the corresponding issue: https://invent.kde.org/melvo/xmpp-providers/-/issues/32

  27. Martin

    I don't see anything regarding spam servers there.

  28. Holger

    > There should rather be a spammer criteria, than not listing I believe How does listing spam scars help users who check your list to find a server?

  29. Holger

    > There should rather be a spammer criteria, than not listing I believe How does listing spam servers help users who check your list to find a server?

  30. emus

    Holger: It exposes them as *not* to register at least

  31. emus

    Holger: It exposes servers as *not* to register at least

  32. Holger

    Yes but how does that help?

  33. Holger

    Why not just list those servers you deem suitable for registration?

  34. Martin

    > Why not just list those servers you deem suitable for registration? That's my point. Spam servers should simply not get listed.

  35. emus

    Well, we always want to be transparent about what we do. Why not expose them as spammers?

  36. Holger

    emus: Why not list domains that don't offer XMPP? Seems unrelated to the goal of suggesting servers to newcomers.

  37. Holger

    > Well, we always want to be transparent about what we do. Maybe allow for explicitly querying your data for a specific server? I.e. similar to https://compliance.conversations.im – list suggestions and offer a domain input field?

  38. emus

    Holger: The last thing I don't fully understand

  39. emus

    > Holger: > 2022-09-17 05:35 (GMT+02:00) > emus: Why not list domains that don't offer XMPP? Seems unrelated to the goal of suggesting servers to newcomers. We experienced so far that the transparency usually results into improvement of server setups (also with respect to users). So, I believe this is a good thing.

  40. Holger

    Still the same topic: Your goal is listing suggestions. Why also list servers you _don't_ suggest? If the goal here is transparency, just add some domain input field that allows admins to check why their server isn't listed?

  41. Holger

    > We experienced so far that the transparency usually results into improvement of server setups (also with respect to users). So, I believe this is a good thing. Yes I see totally see how it makes sense to allow motivated admins to check how to get listed. But that could be done without cluttering the UI for end users, no?

  42. MattJ

    Yeah. I personally think the best way is not to remove them, but bury them a bit more than they are now.

  43. MattJ

    But then it's also going to bury various category D servers that are totally fine by most people's criteria 🙂

  44. Martin

    I'd prefer to not show servers that appear on the jabberspam list at all. If you *really*, *really* want to show all servers then making appearance on the jabberspam list showing up under "F" and not on par with servers like conversations.im is still better than the current state.

  45. Martin

    Right now it is only creep.im (which is not critical, as nowadays the admin is reachable in this MUC and it could get delisted if the admin would go through the process) but what if other really bad spam servers get added to the list?

  46. MattJ

    Martin: I really don't see the problem if the site flags it

  47. MattJ

    If you think it's a site that only lists recommended servers, that's incorrect and maybe the site needs clarification

  48. MattJ

    It's a directory of all public XMPP servers

  49. ernst.on.tour

    They should be shown, otherwise it could be interpreted as "oh, they have miss to test it" and not as "be a bad one"

  50. Martin

    I see this list as a list of recommended servers and servers flagged as "bad, do not use" should not appear at all. Why would you add something to the list of suggestions only to flag it as "not suggested"?

  51. MattJ

    That's why I said they shouldn't be removed, but definitely buried so people can't accidentally think they are recommended

  52. MattJ

    Martin: for reference purposes

  53. Martin

    Ok, I see your point.

  54. Martin

    But then it should have a "F" category.

  55. MattJ

    Like compliance.conversations.im lets you see non-compliant servers (but does not recommend them on the front page)

  56. MattJ

    'D' is 'F'

  57. Martin

    Right now a server appearing on the jabberspam list is on the same level as conversations.im. For me that's questionable, at least.

  58. ernst.on.tour

    Feel free to mark them as "evil" or "claoke" 😉

  59. MattJ

    I agree that it should probably be more clearly separated

  60. MattJ

    conversations.im being in the same category as worse servers is a separate problem

  61. MattJ

    With different solutions

  62. Martin

    Yeah, missing max http-upload size and server being known for spam should have a different weight. .)

  63. Martin

    Yeah, missing max http-upload size and server being known for spam should have a different weight. :)

  64. MattJ

    So 3 actions for the project: 1) add a "is known spam server" property, 2) show category D servers less prominently and make it more clear they are NOT recommended, 3) fix the category of conversations.im (and probably others)

  65. Martin

    ernst.on.tour: claoke? Do you mean kloake? I would never suggest something like this. That's very disrespectful.

  66. Martin

    Number 2) is not a problem as it already red and states "Providers in this category cannot or should not be used for registration."

  67. Martin

    My issue was just that spam servers are listed on the same level as conversations.im while I rather have them not listed. But I can also understand your point that not listing them might lead people to the conclusion it might be a good server that has just not been evaluated yet.

  68. MattJ

    I still think they shouldn't necessarily be on the front pagr

  69. MattJ

    I still think they shouldn't necessarily be on the front page

  70. MattJ

    They should be discoverable, but they are not relevant to 90% of people who are looking for a server to use

  71. MattJ

    For people interested in the properties of a specific server or for a full directory of services, sure. But that need not be on the front page.

  72. melvo

    As MattJ alresdy said, the website is for all providers, not only suggested ones. If all clients integrate XMPP Providers (by using at least catehory C providers), no user will ever need to visit that website and see providers in category D. That is the goal instead of havin yet another website listing providers for users. conversations.im will get to A as soon as we are finished with the automation work.

  73. melvo

    As MattJ already said, the website is for all providers, not only suggested ones. If all clients integrate XMPP Providers (by using at least catehory C providers), no user will ever need to visit that website and see providers in category D. That is the goal instead of havin yet another website listing providers for users. conversations.im will get to A as soon as we are finished with the automation work.

  74. melvo

    As MattJ already said, the website is for all providers, not only suggested ones. If all clients integrate XMPP Providers (by using at least catehory C providers), no user will ever need to visit that website and see providers in category D. That is the goal instead of having yet another website listing providers for users. conversations.im will get to A as soon as we are finished with the automation work.

  75. melvo

    The main target of the website are the providers theirselves to see how they can improve their category and client developers to see what XMPP Providers is about.

  76. melvo

    We will introduce a property for spam servers as well once we have more automation.

  77. Martin

    Good. :)

  78. Trung

    > For people interested in the properties of a specific server or for a full directory of services, sure. But that need not be on the front page. I agree with MattJ ^

  79. MattJ

    melvo: what remains to be done for the automation work?

  80. Holger

    > So 3 actions for the project: 1) add a "is known spam server" property, 2) show category D servers less prominently and make it more clear they are NOT recommended, 3) fix the category of conversations.im (and probably others) conversations.im and those others are classified as 'D' based on missing data for classification. Which seems like a contradiction in itself to me.

  81. melvo

    MattJ: The points mentioned in https://invent.kde.org/melvo/xmpp-providers/-/issues/32 and some others not yet added to it.

  82. Holger

    > The main target of the website are the providers theirselves to see how they can improve their category What's the advantage of publishing a *list* for this purpose, as opposed to an input field that allows admins to query the data/classification of their server?

  83. Zash

    Public shaming is a powerful motivator

  84. Zash

    or, chasing those green checkboxes

  85. Holger

    Zash: Yes I'm assuming that's the motivation indeed.

  86. Zash

    I am of course assuminguessing too

  87. Holger

    I think (1) that's not cool and (2) it doesn't help with the intended purpose.

  88. Holger

    (2) because people get the impression that the list yields wierd results.

  89. MattJ

    Holger [18:45]: > > conversations.im and those others are classified as 'D' based on missing data for classification. Which seems like a contradiction in itself to me. This seems like a good argument for a separate "incomplete" category

  90. Holger

    And I'd think just _not_ listing servers would give interested admins enough incentive just fine.

  91. Holger

    > If you think it's a site that only lists recommended servers, that's incorrect and maybe the site needs clarification > It's a directory of all public XMPP servers So it's a directory of *all* federating XMPP servers, classified by criteria relevant to one specific use case (registering for a server that works well with mobile IM clients)?

  92. Zash

    I'm under the impression that it's partly a list of public servers along with details like file upload limits etc, and partly a opinionated grouping of those, that is optional to use.

  93. Zash

    with the intent of being embedded in clients for use in "create account" dialogs

  94. Zash

    So clients could use the existing ranking, or invent their own based on the available data.

  95. Holger

    Yes that part is cool 🙂

  96. Zash

    Whether the ranking is useful is up to clients and other users of the data I suppose. As a server dev, I'm not sure my opinion matters that much. :)

  97. Holger

    I.e. gathering data and allowing clients to filter servers based on criteria (and maybe offering filters for common use cases).

  98. Holger

    Public shaming not so much.

  99. Zash

    If you apply any subjective criteria, it's probably also subjective whether it counts as public _shaming_...

  100. Holger

    Apart from all that I'd allow server admins to opt out from being listed.

  101. Zash

    Having an "incomplete data" category does seem sensible imo.

  102. Holger

    Zash: Well it clearly says "should not be used for registration", so it triggers questions from power users worried that they registered with something bad.

  103. Zash

    Opinions!

  104. Zash

    But yeah, that does sound a bit harsh, especially if it's really about incomplete data.

  105. Holger

    Seems the opinion of an xmpp.net subdomain has some kind of authority.

  106. Holger

    (And no my _personal_ issue isn't being listed as 'D' but not being able to get off that list.)

  107. Holger

    And also my football team lost today.

  108. Zash

    And it's raining again!

  109. ernst.on.tour

    > And also my football team lost today. 1.FC BM ? 😂 > And it's raining again! Wrong place, sun is/was shining whole day 😝

  110. ernst.on.tour

    s/place/location

  111. MattJ

    Holger: I thought I was helping nurture community projects by offering subdomains and hosting this way, but to be honest it's been mostly nothing but trouble for me since I started 😐

  112. Martin

    > Seems the opinion of an xmpp.net subdomain has some kind of authority. Hmm, I recall this discussion from the lemmy thing. :D

  113. Holger

    MattJ: Sorry about that, I'll shut up on this topic in public.

  114. Martin

    MattJ: Don't know whether it helps you or not but my criticism would have been the same when it was providers.kaidan.im. :)

  115. MattJ

    The thing is, now, I feel like being more careful about what I say "yes" to, but that will probably make the "authoritative" perception worse 😐

  116. MattJ

    So maybe we just need more community projects that are absurd and totally can't be mistaken as any kind of "official" thing

  117. mjk

    open subdomain registration? :))

  118. Martin

    MattJ: gimme xmpp-sucks.xmpp.net 🙂

  119. mjk

    xD

  120. mjk

    that _one_ will do it

  121. MattJ

    mjk: Something makes me think that won't make life easier 😄

  122. Martin

    > MattJ: gimme xmpp-sucks.xmpp.net 🙂 Not sure whether to show the 'xmpp sucks' meme there or forward to that GitHub project which controls vacuum cleaners using xmpp. 🧐

  123. MattJ

    Why not both?!

  124. mjk

    Martin: why not both? make "I know" on the picture a clickable region

  125. Martin

    🤣

  126. Holger

    > The thing is, now, I feel like being more careful about what I say "yes" to, but that will probably make the "authoritative" perception worse 😐 Yes I totally get the issue and see no good solution. But I'd think this specific example is fine, I mean I was just suggesting changes and giving reasonings, it's not like I'm asking anyone to take that site down. If my suggestions aren't convincing so be it.

  127. mjk

    an easter egg

  128. Martin

    But actually I wonder that there is an issue with seeing an xmpp.net domain as an official endorsement as most, if not all, people here should know that it is not. Do we need a mandatory banner "This website is not provided nor endorsed by the XSF" banner on all xmpp.net domains? I strongly dislike banners like that, but I also don't want MattJ to be subject to complaints for stuff happening on subdomains on xmpp.net he (or iteam? no idea) gives away as I think it's useful to give xmpp projects the possibility to get a nice xmpp domain without having to rent one themselves.

  129. Martin

    But actually I wonder that there is an issue with seeing an xmpp.net domain as an official endorsement as most, if not all, people here should know that it is not. Do we need a mandatory banner "This website is not provided nor endorsed by the XSF" banner on all xmpp.net domains? I strongly dislike banners like that, but I also don't want MattJ to be subject to complaints for stuff happening on subdomains on xmpp.net he (or iteam? no idea) gives away as I think it's useful to give xmpp projects the possibility to get a nice xmpp domain without having to rent one themselves.

  130. Martin

    But actually I wonder that there is an issue with seeing an xmpp.net domain as an official endorsement as most, if not all, people here should know that it is not. Do we need a mandatory "This website is not provided nor endorsed by the XSF" banner on all xmpp.net domains? I strongly dislike banners like that, but I also don't want MattJ to be subject to complaints for stuff happening on subdomains on xmpp.net he (or iteam? no idea) gives away as I think it's useful to give xmpp projects the possibility to get a nice xmpp domain without having to rent one themselves.

  131. MattJ

    Having such in a footer might not be a bad thing

  132. Holger

    ernst.on.tour: > 1.FC BM ? 😂 Now I'm worried about my image in public!

  133. Holger

    I actually meant the youth team I coach. If we're taking Bundesliga, Hertha BSC played 1:1 yesterday, would've thought it's obvious that this is the best soccer club of all time.

  134. Martin

    There was no winner, so everybody lost!

  135. emus

    > MattJ: > 2022-09-17 06:58 (GMT+02:00) > Like compliance.conversations.im lets you see non-compliant servers (but does not recommend them on the front page) > 'D' is 'F' Yup I think it rather makes sense to adjust C & D criteria instead of having another F. We have many of the critques & points listed to improve. We also think that the project has advanced any other attempt in that recommendation regard from a user perspective - but not exceeded its potential feature and fairness-wise. But it is a work in progress project and we needed to start somewhere. It was also not clear how fragemented and diverse the server setup spectra is. And also what kind of stuff people come up with. So, for the moment we would like to ask for some patience and bare with us until we get the automation done. Yes I agree that spammers or really bad guys should be shown differently than not being clear about some parameters. Last but not least: The website ist actually not the go-to for users. The users should.be onboarded through clients. In there you are free to not use list A of course or simply add if yoi think other servers should be in there. I also don't follow the public shaming thing. Yes, we have that categories, but to have some standard we need some parameters right? I think all the criteria are usually easy to come up with if your are motivated to and you get into B easy. And further more we never started blaming actively - instead we reached out or tried to discuss with all the server maintainers. The best example is the abondoned draugr.de server maintainer I had to send a postcard to reach - and it really worked. > So clients could use the existing ranking, or invent their own based on the available data. yes I hope that all content complaints are lead to us and not to MattJ

  136. Martin

    A postcard?

  137. Martin

    😲

  138. moparisthebest

    emus: that is some dedication :)