XMPP Service Operators - 2024-06-21


  1. Polarian

    >> I'm not sure how that's any of anyone's business, unless the owner/operator asks for assistance? We as a community can't comment on the future of some kind of service that's not ran by us. > Well, these "kids" mess up the reputation of the entire network incl. its apps. shouldn't assume peoples ages and secondly XMPP is a protocol... the "reputation" doesn't matter... what matters is how you run your server :)

  2. Polarian

    > moparisthebest: They will not switch, they will leave the network behind then tough luck... people have individual liberty, and that means the choice of what server to pick or whether they stick about, you can't put a gun to their head and demand they migrate server and use XMPP, as then you remove said liberty.

  3. Polarian

    > Not only because of spam and abuse if you don't like how a server is run, you can block the s2s connection, and refuse to peer...

  4. Polarian

    > https://joinjabber.org/about/community/covenant/ Without sparking a huge debate, I would like to point out the first bullet point is unenforceable, what one person considers offensive in the west could be completely acceptable in the middle east.. its up to personal interpretation... Plus is it right dictating what content someone else runs their XMPP server for? I do like the idea of having some agreement on what is expected from public providers, but I feel this is also political going into social politics way too much...

  5. moparisthebest

    then don't agree, or make your own and try to get others to agree to it, again this seems hardly the place to discuss it...

  6. Polarian

    > emus: how's your public server doing? I do want to comment on this as well. One big issue with public servers isn't the money, XMPP isn't too heavy and with a small amount of your monthly income (provided you are working) you can set up public provider using cloud servers. The problem is, at least from my point if view, is laws and regulations by governments. The moment you provide a "service" you have a ton of duties, and responsibilities, outside of simply running the server. I am going to be shot for saying this, but these regulations make it very unappealing to be a public provider without incorporating and doing it on behalf of a separate legal entity (a company). If you mess up and lose data, or worse, leak data in a security breech, you PERSONALLY have unlimited liability for the damage... that is a scary thought.

  7. Polarian

    > then don't agree, or make your own and try to get others to agree to it, again this seems hardly the place to discuss it... Hence the "without sparking a huge argument", it was posted, I wanted a one off comment on it that's all...

  8. moparisthebest

    I've never seen any data breach cause liability, even data breaches by multi-billion dollar megacorps lol "we are sorry..." is all you get. at best.

  9. Polarian

    > I've never seen any data breach cause liability, even data breaches by multi-billion dollar megacorps lol "we are sorry..." is all you get. at best. under GDPR, even if it isn't your fault, if you lose data integrity, or leak data in a breech, you get fined. for rich companies this isn't a big deal... for an individual? you could go bankrupt and lose everything. Disclaimer: IANAL but this is my interpretation of the law, and what I have read on the topic.

  10. moparisthebest

    /shrug

  11. Polarian

    and hence I won't touch public providing with a 6 foot pole... at least... not unless I have legal rubber coating.

  12. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    > > https://joinjabber.org/about/community/covenant/ > Without sparking a huge debate, I would like to point out the first bullet point is unenforceable, what one person considers offensive in the west could be completely acceptable in the middle east.. its up to personal interpretation... > > Plus is it right dictating what content someone else runs their XMPP server for? > > I do like the idea of having some agreement on what is expected from public providers, but I feel this is also political going into social politics way too much... we also already do moderate. xsf has a CoC and I would expect any server here that breaks that to not be welcome here :)

  13. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    if they were found to be breaking it that is

  14. Guus

    the CoC only applies to XSF-hosted venues

  15. Guus

    there is nothing that says no-one can federate with entities that break the CoC.

  16. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    hmm i would be pretty surprised if XSF allowed nazis in here personally for an easy example

  17. Guus

    Sure, that applies of people doing things that break with the CoC _in this room_

  18. Guus

    but there's nothing in the XSF rules that forbid nazis from using XMPP.

  19. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    ah in general yeah of course

  20. Trung

    that's like saying nazi cannot use XMPP

  21. Trung

    > but there's nothing in the XSF rules that forbid nazis from using XMPP. yeah exactly

  22. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    by welcome here i meant this room operators

  23. worlio.com

    Don't see any swastikas in the members list. Don't think that would be a concern anyhow.

  24. jonas’

    Guus, the CoC-enforcement may also take behaviour outside the venues into account, IIRC

  25. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    fair. it was more that we already do dictate what content other people have on their server in a variety of ways

  26. worlio.com

    The way I moderate and handle my server would not be approved by the XSF CoC.

  27. Guus

    jonas’ does it? Unsure - but even then, our CoC intents to be policy applied to XSF venues, not to the larger XMPP ecosystem.

  28. jonas’

    certainly, yes

  29. Guus

    All that I'm sayig is that the XSF CoC is not intended / should not / can not be used to define a policy that must apply to everyone that uses XMPP.

  30. worlio.com

    Restricting the entirety of XMPP usage and federation through the CoC would be near impossible to enforce and a cause for concern. It wouldn't be realistic if it was.

  31. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    > All that I'm sayig is that the XSF CoC is not intended / should not / can not be used to define a policy that must apply to everyone that uses XMPP. sure. i doubt anybody here suggest otherwise

  32. jonas’

    worlio.com, people can do whatever on their servers, including defederating other servers for any type of behaviour they seem fit.

  33. Guus

    It was unclread to me if MSavoritias (fae,ve) erroneously mixed up to two distinct topics (having people sign covenants and moderate things based on the XSF's CoC)

  34. Guus

    *unclear

  35. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    ah maybe i phrased it wrong i apologize

  36. worlio.com

    jonas’: Yes, so attempting to enforce a CoC across the entire federation would be pointless aswell.

  37. Guus

    np

  38. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    i meant that I doubt it would be consistent with the XSF CoC to allow moderators of xmpp servers that are breaking CoC in this room (the operators room)

  39. jonas’

    MSavoritias (fae,ve), I think there's no easy to see line there.

  40. Guus

    I don't know if that's true. Jonas’ suggested that behavior outside of our venues could make the CoC apply. I'd have to check, but I wonder if it's that clear-cut.

  41. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    sure i agree. it would be based on context

  42. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    and what exactly is done. and obviously communicating with the operator

  43. Guus

    I would expect that the CoC is primarily enforcable based on behavior expressed in venues that or covered by the CoC

  44. jonas’

    Guus, the CoC applies to people ("This Code of Conduct applies to anyone who Participates in any XSF Activity.").

  45. Guus

    reads like it applies to people in context of participation in an XSF activity

  46. Guus

    I read that as: people can be total assholes elsewhere, but as long as they behave during XSF Activities, the CoC may not apply.

  47. Guus

    during/in

  48. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    depends what exactly we mean by "total assholes" personally

  49. Guus

    acting in conflict with the CoC

  50. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    i think this needs to be tested and or come up practically to see imo.

  51. MSavoritias (fae,ve)

    (which it hasnt until now afaik)

  52. Felix

    Hi there, I'm the operator of impfpush.de, which caused trouble because of expired TLS certificates (which I didn't notice because my personal account runs on the same Prosody instance) and me being not reachable because of outdated contact entries. Sorry for that noise (I saw at least Martin already has the domain on his blocklist) , and thanks Menel for investigating and finding my current contact details. The ImpfPush service is still running and according to the user database, used by not only me, but as Menel suggested, there may be dead accounts in my DB. Therefore, I'll probably shut down the service soon. Or maybe I find the time to implement a solution that automatically removes subscriptions of dead accounts …

  53. Polarian

    > fair. it was more that we already do dictate what content other people have on their server in a variety of ways Not really... nothing stops me right now... sure I will be banned, but my server won't get shut down for example... not saying I would ever do something horrible like that... just an example

  54. Polarian

    > depends what exactly we mean by "total assholes" personally unfortunately an "asshole" is subjective :P

  55. luca

    How would the server get shut down because of one or many spam accounts? I would assume spam protection is something that admins work on all the time, and is never trully solved

  56. Polarian

    > How would the server get shut down because of one or many spam accounts? I would assume spam protection is something that admins work on all the time, and is never trully solved You can't shutdown servers for spam, thats the problem

  57. Polarian

    its the same issue email has... when you decentralise you give freedom to everyone, including bad actors

  58. moparisthebest

    It's actually easier when it's decentralized

  59. moparisthebest

    Google/Microsoft send probably (warning: I made up this number) 99% of all email spam, but you can't really block them because many legitimate users too...

    👆 1
  60. Brian

    Large email providers also make things difficult for smaller email servers in other ways. I have to go through Amazon SES to reliably send to them.