XSF Discussion - 2017-10-03

Link Mauve: 2017 hmm so is that Jan 7th 2020 or java.util.Date might see that as the 20th month of 2017 and therefore August 1st, 2018 not real sure what you mean there

I'll... Let myself out

jonasw - can I merge that xep list pr?

(and fix the nginx config?)

it appears to be working for me, when running in docker

Guus: I think so 😺

just waiting for someone to do it and fix tge nginx cfg. and confirm that it works 😺

Merged now. Will do ngingx later today.

\o/

ngingx config updated

looks good

thanks jonas!

\o/

then I can finally send the update mails :D

jonasw, now we only need to translate the ~256 terminal colors to CbCr

mathieui, I think I put some wording in there on how to match an existing palette

yeah

still needs to map to the values :p

not sure what you’re asking

mathieui, is something missing?

nope

not in the XEP

(but I need to make a 256color CbCr palette to match against)

I have some code for that somewhere

but I first need to prepare some updates which were discussed here.

Where can I find documentation about MSN (the MUC one)

'45?

hmm, yeah.. I wasn't looking for the correct keyword

There may have been something on the wiki, look there

there’s https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Multi-Session_Nicks

"Multi-session nicks are not currently defined in this document."

mathieui, thanks

It boils down to "implementation detail/policy" right?

https://github.com/jsxc/jsxc/issues/577#issuecomment-314475666 this is BS right? I understand not recognising others in semi-anonymous MUCs, maybe, if one doesn't keep track of who's who, but not self

pep., it applies as long as you don’t share the same nickname

Ok, so it can be done if one uses MSN?

yeah

worksforme

if you use MSN it’s probably tricky to *not* see the messages as from self :)

heh

And MSN would only be required in semi-anon rooms right

There's no problem in non-anonymous rooms

not sure

but yeah

Well you see realjids

yeah

rr I always mix [] and () for links in github

is that the webchat with the XSS vulnerability?

pep.: write a few tens of posts everyday on github and you'll be fine :)

jonasw, I don't know I don't use it, a user of movim just linked to that issue though

“11:43:33 jonasw> is that the webchat with the XSS vulnerability?”, is there a webchat without XSS vulnerabilities? :p

Is there a web thing without?

elinks?

My JS-less website with HTTPS and CSP enforced shouldn’t have any, hopefully.

I suppose Zash was talking about client apps, Kev ✏

Link Mauve, let’s not forget your CSS-less website

Of course, it looks better that way.

I mean the amount of warnings you get if you throw some of those web vuln scanners at a static text file served over http is staggering

mathieui, the best of all worlds :P

He should just serve txt

pep., I would serve it over gopher, but browsers lately have been shutting that down. :(

:(

Link Mauve, yeah, it’s a shame ✏

I even wrote a gopher server when I learnt about it :)

Where's my mod_gopher

Zash: removed due to overwhelming popularity, mod_http got jealy.

Kev: any news on the getting-scam-access-to-twitter front?

It seems I was wrong and I don't have the Twitter password. I'll try to remember to chase someone who has it (bear, I think).

ah, to bad.

yeah.. bear gave me twitter access at least

via tweetdeck

Yeah, I don't want tweetdeck access, I actually want the password :)

yeah..everbody wants that :P

recovery email is bo***@x***.***

so, @xmpp.org

probably board@ :-)

then asking for a reset should allow anyone in board to take control and give the password to Kev

Or just wait for bear to respond and send me the password :)

I get so frustrated with those… every time something says "do you want to send an email to s**@samwhited.com?" … *facepalm*

SamWhited, secret email!

Isn't board@ members only?

Was there any conclusion in that?

What was the 0377 thread? I remember it happening (I think I started it), but as usual can't find it now…

Oh, or maybe the discussion happened on the thread where it was deferred and I was just glancing right over it thinking that was a different thing.

Zash: I don't think there was a resolution, but the resolution in my mind is that I rename it "blocking reasons" or something. The "dependency" it introduces that people are complaining about is intentional, and I think forces a good user experience so I'm not keen to break it.

or just merge it into 0191.