XSF Discussion - 2019-02-22

  1. alacer has joined

  2. Half-ShotX has left

  3. Half-ShotX has joined

  4. novnov has left

  5. j.r has left

  6. Half-ShotX has left

  7. alacer has left

  8. Half-ShotX has joined

  9. Half-ShotX has left

  10. wurstsalat has left

  11. lskdjf has joined

  12. Half-ShotX has joined

  13. lskdjf has left

  14. UsL has left

  15. UsL has joined

  16. Half-ShotX has left

  17. Half-ShotX has joined

  18. Half-ShotX has left

  19. frainz has left

  20. frainz has joined

  21. Half-ShotX has joined

  22. frainz has left

  23. Lance has left

  24. frainz has joined

  25. frainz has left

  26. Half-ShotX has left

  27. frainz has joined

  28. Half-ShotX has joined

  29. l has left

  30. frainz has left

  31. frainz has joined

  32. Half-ShotX has left

  33. rtq3 has left

  34. kokonoe has left

  35. Half-ShotX has joined

  36. kokonoe has joined

  37. Half-ShotX has left

  38. Half-ShotX has joined

  39. Half-ShotX has left

  40. remko has left

  41. Half-ShotX has joined

  42. Half-ShotX has left

  43. Half-ShotX has joined

  44. Half-ShotX has left

  45. Half-ShotX has joined

  46. Half-ShotX has left

  47. remko has joined

  48. Half-ShotX has joined

  49. UsL has left

  50. UsL has joined

  51. Half-ShotX has left

  52. Half-ShotX has joined

  53. lumi has left

  54. Half-ShotX has left

  55. Half-ShotX has joined

  56. Half-ShotX has left

  57. Lance has joined

  58. tux has left

  59. Half-ShotX has joined

  60. Half-ShotX has left

  61. Half-ShotX has joined

  62. wurstsalat has joined

  63. thorsten has left

  64. thorsten has joined

  65. Half-ShotX has left

  66. Half-ShotX has joined

  67. Half-ShotX has left

  68. thorsten has left

  69. remko has left

  70. Half-ShotX has joined

  71. mrDoctorWho has left

  72. Half-ShotX has left

  73. Half-ShotX has joined

  74. Neustradamus has left

  75. mrDoctorWho has joined

  76. Neustradamus has joined

  77. Lance has left

  78. Neustradamus has left

  79. Neustradamus has joined

  80. labdsf has left

  81. labdsf has joined

  82. Half-ShotX has left

  83. Half-ShotX has joined

  84. Half-ShotX has left

  85. Half-ShotX has joined

  86. remko has joined

  87. Yagiza has joined

  88. Half-ShotX has left

  89. Half-ShotX has joined

  90. Half-ShotX has left

  91. remko has left

  92. Half-ShotX has joined

  93. Half-ShotX has left

  94. Half-ShotX has joined

  95. labdsf has left

  96. labdsf has joined

  97. Half-ShotX has left

  98. Half-ShotX has joined

  99. Nekit has joined

  100. Lance has joined

  101. waqas has joined

  102. kokonoe has left

  103. Half-ShotX has left

  104. Half-ShotX has joined

  105. l has joined

  106. kokonoe has joined

  107. Half-ShotX has left

  108. Half-ShotX has joined

  109. thorsten has joined

  110. Lance has left

  111. Half-ShotX has left

  112. Half-ShotX has joined

  113. Half-ShotX has left

  114. Half-ShotX has joined

  115. novnov has joined

  116. lnj has joined

  117. Half-ShotX has left

  118. Half-ShotX has joined

  119. Nekit has left

  120. Nekit has joined

  121. Half-ShotX has left

  122. Half-ShotX has joined

  123. Half-ShotX has left

  124. waqas has left

  125. waqas has joined

  126. kokonoe has left

  127. l has left

  128. labdsf has left

  129. kokonoe has joined

  130. Half-ShotX has joined

  131. karoshi has joined

  132. novnov has left

  133. novnov has joined

  134. Tobias has joined

  135. oli has joined

  136. Tobias has left

  137. Tobias has joined

  138. novnov has left

  139. oli has left

  140. oli has joined

  141. bowlofeggs has left

  142. remko has joined

  143. novnov has joined

  144. rtq3 has joined

  145. Half-ShotX has left

  146. Half-ShotX has joined

  147. bowlofeggs has joined

  148. waqas has left

  149. efrit has joined

  150. j.r has joined

  151. oli has left

  152. oli has joined

  153. Half-ShotX has left

  154. Half-ShotX has joined

  155. UsL has left

  156. efrit has left

  157. Half-ShotX has left

  158. Half-ShotX has joined

  159. andy has joined

  160. rtq3 has left

  161. blabla has joined

  162. Half-ShotX has left

  163. Half-ShotX has joined

  164. goffi has joined

  165. alacer has joined

  166. novnov has left

  167. rtq3 has joined

  168. Half-ShotX has left

  169. Half-ShotX has joined

  170. karoshi has left

  171. karoshi has joined

  172. lnj has left

  173. mimi89999 has left

  174. mimi89999 has joined

  175. rtq3 has left

  176. Half-ShotX has left

  177. Half-ShotX has joined

  178. lnj has joined

  179. labdsf has joined

  180. lnj has left

  181. ralphm has left

  182. Half-ShotX has left

  183. Half-ShotX has joined

  184. melvo has joined

  185. Wiktor has left

  186. Wiktor has joined

  187. bowlofeggs has left

  188. bowlofeggs has joined

  189. Half-ShotX has left

  190. Half-ShotX has joined

  191. vaulor has left

  192. vaulor has joined

  193. Half-ShotX has left

  194. Half-ShotX has joined

  195. frainz has left

  196. frainz has joined

  197. 404.city has joined

  198. blabla has left

  199. frainz has left

  200. frainz has joined

  201. mimi89999 has left

  202. mimi89999 has joined

  203. lnj has joined

  204. Half-ShotX has left

  205. Half-ShotX has joined

  206. alacer has left

  207. alacer has joined

  208. alacer has left

  209. blabla has joined

  210. j.r has left

  211. andrey.g has left

  212. mimi89999 has left

  213. mimi89999 has joined

  214. alacer has joined

  215. Half-ShotX has left

  216. Half-ShotX has joined

  217. andrey.g has joined

  218. mimi89999 has left

  219. mimi89999 has joined

  220. remko has left

  221. alacer has left

  222. ralphm has joined

  223. blabla has left

  224. frainz has left

  225. frainz has joined

  226. Half-ShotX has left

  227. Half-ShotX has joined

  228. frainz has left

  229. frainz has joined

  230. frainz has left

  231. frainz has joined

  232. Half-ShotX has left

  233. frainz has left

  234. frainz has joined

  235. alacer has joined

  236. frainz has left

  237. frainz has joined

  238. alacer has left

  239. Half-ShotX has joined

  240. Half-ShotX has left

  241. frainz has left

  242. frainz has joined

  243. frainz has left

  244. frainz has joined

  245. Half-ShotX has joined

  246. frainz has left

  247. frainz has joined

  248. tux has joined

  249. remko has joined

  250. Half-ShotX has left

  251. blabla has joined

  252. Half-ShotX has joined

  253. karoshi has left

  254. karoshi has joined

  255. wurstsalat has left

  256. Nekit has left

  257. Nekit has joined

  258. melvo has left

  259. Half-ShotX has left

  260. Half-ShotX has joined

  261. lnj has left

  262. Half-ShotX has left

  263. Half-ShotX has joined

  264. Half-ShotX has left

  265. lnj has joined

  266. Steve Kille has joined

  267. ralphm has left

  268. blabla has left

  269. Half-ShotX has joined

  270. melvo has joined

  271. bowlofeggs has left

  272. Holger has left

  273. Holger has joined

  274. Half-ShotX has left

  275. Half-ShotX has joined

  276. lnj has left

  277. kokonoe has left

  278. lnj has joined

  279. rtq3 has joined

  280. kokonoe has joined

  281. melvo has left

  282. Half-ShotX has left

  283. Half-ShotX has joined

  284. Steve Kille has left

  285. kokonoe has left

  286. kokonoe has joined

  287. Half-ShotX has left

  288. Half-ShotX has joined

  289. yvo has joined

  290. Half-ShotX has left

  291. Half-ShotX has joined

  292. Half-ShotX has left

  293. Half-ShotX has joined

  294. vaulor has left

  295. vaulor has joined

  296. Andrew Nenakhov


  297. Andrew Nenakhov

    About that recent matrix discussion )

  298. Zash

    > Pick your markup YAML ain't markup. Netiher is JSON.

  299. Half-ShotX has left

  300. Half-ShotX has joined

  301. Guus

    Can we stop comparing ourselves to Matrix? Let them be.

  302. Ge0rG

    YAML. Where MAC address strings become sexagesimal (yes, this is a word. no, it's not a dirty word): https://yaml.org/type/int.html > canonical: 685230 > sexagesimal: 190:20:30

  303. cookie has joined

  304. jubalh has joined

  305. jubalh

    do jids have to be lowercase?

  306. Ge0rG

    jubalh: no, but IIRC you need to lowercase the bare JID part for comparisons

  307. oli has left

  308. Half-ShotX has left

  309. Half-ShotX has joined

  310. Ge0rG

    TL;DR: it's a deep deep rabbit hole... start at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7622#section-3.1

  311. cookie has left

  312. zinid

    the whole idea of case-insensitivity is broken completely

  313. Zash

    That's the PRECIS version?

  314. zinid

    putting it on servers is the worst thing invented

  315. Zash

    Does anyone implement PRECIS yet?

  316. zinid

    Zash, not me πŸ™‚

  317. Zash

    It is indeed a deep rabbit hole, and you will find only sadness at the bottom.

  318. zinid

    I barely can understand what is written in the PRECIS spec

  319. zinid

    like some alien wrote that for dogs

  320. Zash

    Hm? IIRC it's not too different from STRINGPREP

  321. zinid

    well I didn't read stringprep either, just took a ready-to-use table

  322. MattJ

    I think a problem with PRECIS is that it varies by Unicode version

  323. MattJ

    which is a good idea in theory (no table to go out of data, all the work is done by the maintainers of Unicode)

  324. MattJ

    But in practice it will cause interop problems on the network, as everyone will be using different versions

  325. Zash

    Didn't that problem exist already?

  326. MattJ

    Also some JIDs that are valid one year will become invalid the next year

  327. Zash

    Do you remember robot face?

  328. zinid

    Zash, I think there is a problem with emojis in resources

  329. zinid

    does it count?

  330. MattJ

    Zash, different issue

  331. blabla has joined

  332. MattJ

    Related, but different

  333. Zash


  334. Ge0rG

    Emojis in resources are also Unicode code points which may or may not be supported by a given XMPP implementation

  335. Ge0rG

    Joining a MUC as πŸ€– will make certain clients quit and some servers drop s2s.

  336. Ge0rG

    And don't even think about sending a MUC message from that nickname

  337. MattJ

    But that's not a problem with the definition of stringprep, is it?

  338. zinid

    I like how virtually nobody understands exactly why there is a problem with emojis in resources πŸ˜€

  339. Yagiza has left

  340. Zash

    That was a problem with some library allowing things by default and some others disallowing by default?

  341. zinid

    I honestly have no idea

  342. jubalh

    Ge0rG, thx

  343. Half-ShotX has left

  344. Half-ShotX has joined

  345. MattJ

    Zash, right

  346. Yagiza has joined

  347. Ge0rG

    And then there are things like https://discourse.igniterealtime.org/t/smack-disconnects-if-priority-is-out-of-range/73401

  348. remko has left

  349. rtq3 has left

  350. rtq3 has joined

  351. Link Mauve

    Ge0rG, https://issues.prosody.im/921

  352. Half-ShotX has left

  353. Half-ShotX has joined

  354. Ge0rG

    Link Mauve: what if prosody receives that via s2s? Drop the link?

  355. Ge0rG

    Link Mauve: what about <show>fubar</show> or the invalid MUC JIDs on conference.jabber.org?

  356. Zash

    Drop the link and report them to the authorities

  357. Ge0rG is in a world of sad. https://discourse.igniterealtime.org/t/gajim-presence-can-dos-xmpptcpconnection/84179/5

  358. pep.

    Zash, authorities in a decentralized world :

  359. pep.

    Zash, authorities in a decentralized world :P

  360. zinid

    pep., let's encrypt

  361. pep.


  362. Link Mauve

    Ge0rG, fix the emitting server’s software, then use 0157 to tell the sysadmin of the emitting server to update.

  363. pep.

    And sad at the same time

  364. Zash

    pep.: Our one true glob, ICANN

  365. Ge0rG

    Error> No Contact Addresses for jabber.org

  366. pep.

    Zash, We need blockchains, namecoin!

  367. zinid

    pep., I consider this as a natural limitation, like a CAP theorem for example, you cannot do anything with it

  368. zinid

    seems like nature decided "you cannot go fully decentralized, muahahaha"

  369. Zash

    pep.: Someone will just end up with 51% of the power

  370. oli has joined

  371. zinid

    yeah, the Byzantine Generals theorem sums it up clearly

  372. lnj has left

  373. lnj has joined

  374. Half-ShotX has left

  375. Half-ShotX has joined

  376. yvo has left

  377. jubalh has left

  378. pep.

    And in practice it's not even 51 but less than that :/

  379. yvo has joined

  380. zinid

    1/3 afair

  381. zinid

    according to the Byzantine theorem

  382. kokonoe has left

  383. UsL has joined

  384. Andrew Nenakhov has left

  385. Half-ShotX has left

  386. Half-ShotX has joined

  387. Andrew Nenakhov has joined

  388. kokonoe has joined

  389. Neustradamus has left

  390. Yagiza has left

  391. Yagiza has joined

  392. Half-ShotX has left

  393. Half-ShotX has joined

  394. blabla has left

  395. l has joined

  396. Half-ShotX has left

  397. Half-ShotX has joined

  398. rtq3 has left

  399. kokonoe has left

  400. Half-ShotX has left

  401. kokonoe has joined

  402. rtq3 has joined

  403. theTedd has joined

  404. theTedd

    hi kids

  405. pep.

    hey there

  406. theTedd

    could Ge0rG and jonas’ confirm/deny their vote for PR #744 -- -1 (as-is, +1 with "thereby taking up the role of XEP author" removed)

  407. Half-ShotX has joined

  408. zinid

    > https://issues.prosody.im/921 Zash heh, we don't validate that in ejabberd, I added the check, but then reverted because there was a lot of scream

  409. Zash

    zinid: What kind of check?

  410. zinid

    Zash, [-127, 127]

  411. Zash

    zinid: And what kind of action?

  412. Link Mauve


  413. zinid

    Zash, back then there was a lot of nerdy clients which allow a user to set any priority, so some of snow flakes set it to 666 or 1024

  414. Zash

    I mean, did you reject them or rewrite into that range?

  415. Neustradamus has joined

  416. zinid

    Zash, reject with stanza error (not stream)

  417. Zash

    There's a setting in Prosody that rewrites all presence priority to zero, which don't think anyone has had all that much truoble with.

  418. zinid

    I can fix it instantly since the check is in a single place, that's a one-line commit, but I'm not sure

  419. jonas’ throws praise at theTedd

  420. jonas’

    I’m at work right now though and won’t be able to clarify until tomorrow

  421. Neustradamus has left

  422. Andrew Nenakhov

    I think that priorities are an outdated concept.

  423. Andrew Nenakhov

    So best value is zero.

  424. theTedd

    okay, no problem

  425. zinid

    Andrew Nenakhov, yeah, that's why I started the discussion now

  426. Andrew Nenakhov


  427. Ge0rG

    theTedd: IIRC the introduction of the shepherd was an accepted solution in the council meeting two weeks ago?

  428. neshtaxmpp has left

  429. Neustradamus has joined

  430. zinid

    Andrew Nenakhov, if priorities are kinda meaningless nowadays, it's better to be RFC compliant in order not to confuse other implementaions

  431. theTedd

    I was just checking whether the changes satisfied your voting condition

  432. Ge0rG

    zinid [13:16]: > Zash, reject with stanza error (not stream) And if you received that from a MUC participant, you get yourself kicked?

  433. jonas’

    theTedd, in the end, the vote on #744 (if I’m not mixing things up) by council is informational only, anyways.

  434. zinid

    Ge0rG, MUC what? I just merged MIX into ejabberd πŸ˜€

  435. Andrew Nenakhov

    zinid, we set them to zero by default and are thinking to make in non changeable.

  436. zinid

    Andrew Nenakhov, yeah, that's fine

  437. Zash

    Ge0rG: Something something liberal about what you receive, except ugh

  438. Ge0rG

    zinid: ah, then you can `git rm mod_muc.erl` now

  439. zinid

    Ge0rG, sure I'll do after mod_mix_muc become a thing(y)

  440. theTedd

    jonas’, meaning the PR is accepted or not?

  441. jonas’

    theTedd, board voted on it

  442. jonas’

    one would have to check board votes

  443. Ge0rG

    I have a nerd use case for negative priority, because my main client can't mam and I don't want to consume messages with the other clients when the main one is offline.

  444. theTedd

    jonas’, so what was the council vote for?

  445. jonas’

    theTedd, to give board an idea on what we want

  446. jonas’

    *if I recall correctly*

  447. Zash

    So priority should be in (-1, 0)

  448. theTedd

    jonas’, understood

  449. pep.

    Zash, True/False?

  450. Ge0rG

    I'm +1 on 744, but it's not formally binding

  451. Half-ShotX has left

  452. Half-ShotX has joined

  453. theTedd

    Ge0rG, thanks

  454. Zash

    Alternatively, don't send presence.

  455. Ge0rG

    Zash: did I mention "implementation defined message routing rules" yet?

  456. Zash

    Ge0rG: mod_firewall with an xmpp interface next?

  457. Zash

    Something's gotta replace privacy lists!

  458. zinid

    by privacy lists!

  459. ThibG has left

  460. ThibG has joined

  461. Ge0rG

    Replace RFC 6120 with mod_firewall?

  462. Half-ShotX has left

  463. Half-ShotX has joined

  464. alacer has joined

  465. Half-ShotX has left

  466. jmpman has left

  467. Half-ShotX has joined

  468. alacer has left

  469. Half-ShotX has left

  470. l has left

  471. alacer has joined

  472. theTedd has left

  473. Half-ShotX has joined

  474. yvo has left

  475. Half-ShotX has left

  476. Half-ShotX has joined

  477. yvo has joined

  478. j.r has joined

  479. ThibG has left

  480. ThibG has joined

  481. mimi89999 has left

  482. mimi89999 has joined

  483. Half-ShotX has left

  484. Half-ShotX has joined

  485. blabla has joined

  486. andy has left

  487. andy has joined

  488. Half-ShotX has left

  489. alacer has left

  490. Half-ShotX has joined

  491. kokonoe has left

  492. bowlofeggs has joined

  493. rtq3 has left

  494. alacer has joined

  495. Half-ShotX has left

  496. kokonoe has joined

  497. 404.city has left

  498. 404.city has joined

  499. blabla has left

  500. Half-ShotX has joined

  501. j.r has left

  502. lumi has joined

  503. lovetox has joined

  504. j.r has joined

  505. Half-ShotX has left

  506. Half-ShotX has joined

  507. j.r has left

  508. j.r has joined

  509. rtq3 has joined

  510. rtq3 has left

  511. rtq3 has joined

  512. Half-ShotX has left

  513. Half-ShotX has joined

  514. j.r has left

  515. rtq3 has left

  516. rtq3 has joined

  517. j.r has joined

  518. Half-ShotX has left

  519. Half-ShotX has joined

  520. remko has joined

  521. Half-ShotX has left

  522. Half-ShotX has joined

  523. Half-ShotX has left

  524. alacer has left

  525. Half-ShotX has joined

  526. ak430770 has joined

  527. Half-ShotX has left

  528. Half-ShotX has joined

  529. lumi has left

  530. Half-Shot has left

  531. undefined has joined

  532. Half-ShotX has left

  533. neshtaxmpp has joined

  534. Half-ShotX has joined

  535. Half-ShotX has left

  536. Half-ShotX has joined

  537. andy has left

  538. Half-ShotX has left

  539. labdsf has left

  540. Half-ShotX has joined

  541. Half-ShotX has left

  542. jubalh has joined

  543. igoose has left

  544. waqas has joined

  545. igoose has joined

  546. Half-ShotX has joined

  547. ak430770 has left

  548. l has joined

  549. alacer has joined

  550. alacer has left

  551. kokonoe has left

  552. j.r has left

  553. kokonoe has joined

  554. j.r has joined

  555. blabla has joined

  556. !xsf_Martin has joined

  557. lumi has joined

  558. remko has left

  559. rion has left

  560. rion has joined

  561. !xsf_Martin has left

  562. !xsf_Martin has joined

  563. Kev has left

  564. ThibG has left

  565. ThibG has joined

  566. blabla has left

  567. tux has left

  568. undefined has left

  569. rtq3 has left

  570. tux has joined

  571. karoshi has left

  572. karoshi has joined

  573. Matthew has joined

  574. Matthew wishes folk remembered that the enemy (if any) here are the proprietary locked-down silos

  575. Matthew

    and the open decentralised comms community might do better to support each other than try to stab each other in the neck...

  576. pep.

    Agreed. There is a history of splitting efforts nonetheless in the free software community, and that's meh

  577. zinid

    Matthew, really, so you think IM fragmentation will help fighting with silos?

  578. Matthew

    does this conversation look fragmented to you?

  579. MattJ

    +1 :)

  580. zinid

    Matthew, what are you talking about?

  581. pep.

    zinid, he's probably joined from matrix :)

  582. zinid

    pep., wow

  583. Matthew

    i am. talking from one open network to another

  584. Matthew

    albeit by a bridge

  585. zinid

    Matthew, so your suggestion is to build many IM networks and connect them via hacky gateways?

  586. jubalh has left

  587. zinid

    dude, I wrote gateways to MSN, ICQ, AIM and Yahoo back then

  588. zinid

    so I will never buy the argument, I know how shitty they are

  589. neshtaxmpp has left

  590. Matthew

    I'm saying that it's healthy to experiment with new approaches in any field or technology. Perhaps the new stuff works; perhaps it doesn't; perhaps it dies off and gets incorporated elsewhere. And yeah, i think it's great when people experiment with new networks - e.g. Briar and Cwtch and stuff are insanely cool.

  591. zinid

    please, spare my time

  592. Matthew

    and yeah, bridges are never going to be perfect, but at least we have the option

  593. Matthew

    and empirically they work well enough for a convo like this.

  594. zinid

    "new approaches", lmao

  595. MattJ

    zinid, Matrix is a pretty different model to XMPP, so yeah

  596. MattJ

    I happen to personally prefer the XMPP model, but I have nothing against people trying others :)

  597. zinid

    sorry, I cannot reply to you, you're not joined πŸ˜€

  598. Matthew

    zinid: i'm not trying to waste your time; just pointing out (objectively) that being grumpy and "how dare people try to build new IM protocols" all over HN does not reflect at all well on the XMPP community

  599. zinid

    Matthew, I don't represent the community

  600. Matthew

    i somehow doubt your audience sees it that way.

  601. Matthew returns to his stuff anyhoo

  602. Guus

    Matthew, remind me to buy you a beer.

  603. !xsf_Martin has left

  604. !xsf_Martin has joined

  605. !xsf_Martin has left

  606. !xsf_Martin has joined

  607. alacer has joined

  608. Matthew

    Guus: i will come claim chimay next year in brussels ;P

  609. tux has left

  610. Guus

    Matthew last month, I discovered something called "beer mania" there. I'm not to worried. πŸ˜ƒ

  611. Andrew Nenakhov

    Building matrix is nih syndrome. Makes sense from business perspective though

  612. Guus

    Andrew Nenakhov even if that were true - point that out over and over and over and over and over again does not do anyone any good.

  613. Guus

    Andrew Nenakhov even if that were true - pointing that out over and over and over and over and over again does not do anyone any good.

  614. waqas agrees with Guus

  615. Guus

    And probably makes the one doing the pointing out looking worse than the one being pointed at.

  616. zinid

    if everyone agrees with everyone, what's the point of the discussion?

  617. Guus

    And probably makes the one doing the pointing out look worse than the one being pointed at.

  618. zinid

    I personally agree with Andrew Nenakhov - this is technically speaking NIH

  619. zinid

    and I'm the last guy to blame as XMPP diehard, ejabberd supports XMPP, SIP and MQTT (since 19.02, coming next week)

  620. zinid

    and we considered implementing Matrix btw

  621. waqas

    XMPP was IRC NIH'd with XML. I suspect some still feel that way.

  622. zinid

    waqas, true, lessons learnt

  623. Guus

    IRC is NIH'd multiplayer notepad.

  624. waqas

    There are a few xkcd's that apply

  625. Guus

    my point is that it's fine to prefer XMPP over Matrix (I do) - but let's not continue a pointless argument over it.

  626. zinid

    anyone who agrees, please enlighten me what's the point in producing many IM networks and building gateways

  627. alacer has left

  628. waqas

    As a user, I suspect many of us think of UIs and not underlying tech. With that mindset, the point would be improved UIs (since I personally feel all of them range from mediocre to annoying).

  629. kokonoe has left

  630. zinid

    well, I'm not a user here

  631. zinid

    and Matthew asked to stop fighting or something, did he asked the "users"?

  632. MattJ

    zinid, what's the point of any software development? You know ejabberd wasn't the first jabber server...

  633. alacer has joined

  634. Andrew Nenakhov

    Some time ago when I was young and stupid I thought that xmpp transports is a good idea to bring more people on board

  635. zinid

    MattJ, there is a difference in producing software and standards

  636. MattJ

    I don't know why git exists when we were happy with rcs, etc.

  637. waqas

    Andrew Nenakhov: Have you stopped being young and stupid? :)

  638. Andrew Nenakhov

    Now I know that it just strengthens silo's network effects

  639. zinid

    waqas, nice ad hominem πŸ™‚

  640. Andrew Nenakhov

    Yes, now I'm significantly more experienced. )

  641. ThibG has left

  642. ThibG has joined

  643. Andrew Nenakhov

    Also, youth is a trait that you inevitably lose.

  644. waqas

    The effects of transports are interesting. I still believe in them in that they strengthen the network that has them.

  645. Seve

    From what I feel, bridges are just usually used by people who do not want to be in the silo, and they are a minority. But I'm no expert on the topic.

  646. MattJ

    waqas, I don't believe in them (I used to)

  647. Andrew Nenakhov

    I think they weaken XMPPs network effect

  648. MattJ

    They're 9 times out of 10 a far worse experience than the native one

  649. waqas

    Yes, and that's the problem ^

  650. kokonoe has joined

  651. Link Mauve

    IRC is the 10th time. :p

  652. pep.

    Something something lowest common denominator

  653. zinid

    so we think this time we will solve the problem with transports

  654. MattJ

    Link Mauve, ...

  655. pep.


  656. MattJ

    Link Mauve, XMPP->IRC->Matrix is how I've been in Matrix rooms for some time now

  657. waqas

    I believe XMPP as a technology had been a low level features that the IM networks of last decade had. That's why transports could do a reasonable job at the time, and I did use them with MSN/Yahoo/etc. That's no longer true for IM networks of today.

  658. MattJ

    Works pretty well usually

  659. Link Mauve

    MattJ, I guess so.

  660. Link Mauve

    My point was more that IRC is a terrible user experience out of the box, and that gateways are almost always an improvement over it.

  661. MattJ

    Link Mauve, sure

  662. waqas

    The XMPP network effect isn't being particularly helpful these days, as I think the proprietary platforms' network effects are an order of magnitude stronger than any of the non-proprietary ones.

  663. pep.

    XMPP, network effect?

  664. pep.

    What's that

  665. MattJ

    pep., the thing that saddled us with the Pidgin users

  666. Seve


  667. pep.

    Matthew, well played, I see you've started another meaningful discussion :P

  668. waqas

    MattJ: To clarify, do we want the pidgin users or not?

  669. zinid

    pep., +1

  670. Guus

    Pidgin provides such poor XMPP experience, that it's chasing the users away.

  671. zinid

    started and hides

  672. Seve

    +1 to Guus, I could feel that in my own skin at FOSDEM

  673. Seve

    people making statements that weren't true

  674. Seve

    based on their experience using Pidgin

  675. pep.

    waqas, we want the users, we don't want pidgin

  676. zinid

    so we will also build voip gateways to SIP, i.e. Jingle<->SIP

  677. zinid

    and Jingle<->Matrix

  678. zinid

    do I understand correctly the postion?

  679. zinid

    what else?

  680. Guus

    gotta pick up the kids. ttyl

  681. zinid

    what a waste of human resources...

  682. Guus

    whut? My kids?

  683. waqas

    That's not a nice thing to say zinid

  684. Seve

    Come on guys :D

  685. zinid

    wut? I didn't mean to say anything about kids

  686. zinid

    relax guys

  687. pep.

    zinid, sarcasm.

  688. zinid

    wtf is wrong with you?

  689. Guus

    I was joking πŸ™‚

  690. Guus

    (well, trying to, at least)

  691. Guus

    ok, off with me. Later

  692. tux has joined

  693. zinid

    oh, Matthew decided to continue debating with me at HN

  694. lumi has left

  695. Ge0rG

    zinid: can you please add to all your public statements a sentence that you are not associated with the xmpp community? 😁

  696. pep.

    What does that mean to be associated to the XMPP community

  697. Ge0rG

    pep.: I'm speaking of this Matthew [17:09]: > zinid: i'm not trying to waste your time; just pointing out (objectively) that being grumpy and "how dare people try to build new IM protocols" all over HN does not reflect at all well on the XMPP community

  698. Seve

    zinid, could you share the link to the discussion, please?

  699. zinid

    Seve, no

  700. Ge0rG

    It doesn't mean anything to us in here.

  701. zinid

    I did this like 10 times today already

  702. zinid

    > how dare people try to build new IM protocols indeed, how dare whatsapp building IM protocols. But let's fight with them!

  703. zinid

    just contradictions in every sentences

  704. ak430770 has joined

  705. Nekit has left

  706. Nekit has joined

  707. MattJ

    Seve, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19216527

  708. Seve

    Thank you MattJ, very appreciated

  709. Lance has joined

  710. mrDoctorWho

    KDE community also created a matrix server. They said that there was no foss replacement for IRC and now there is

  711. pep.

    FUD, FUD all around

  712. j.r

    mrDoctorWho: XMPP is also a good replacement

  713. Link Mauve

    mrDoctorWho, I have some @kde.org people in my roster. :p

  714. alacer has left

  715. Link Mauve

    In my XMPP roster.

  716. j.r

    > mrDoctorWho: XMPP is also a good replacement But people don't unterstand

  717. ak430770 has left

  718. Lance has left

  719. mrDoctorWho

    j.r: I totally agree with you

  720. Seve

    I haven't read their announcement yet, but I feel they already had a decision before even looking up for solutions/alternatives.

  721. andrey.g has left

  722. zinid

    relax, we have gateways πŸ˜€

  723. waqas

    Hey, sometimes you just want to make something new, and you feel it's different from what's already out there

  724. Yagiza has left

  725. waqas

    I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone succeed in trying to stop people from doing that, despite many wanting to

  726. mathieui wishes good luck to Matthew in his interactions with zinid

  727. moparisthebest

    honestly I don't really have a problem with competing open protocols, that's how you narrow down to the best one, it'd be pretty crazy to think XMPP is the best there will ever be

  728. zinid


  729. zinid

    Matthew started with "let's just define our enemy", how does that relate to building something new?

  730. moparisthebest

    it's the closed ones that trap users with lock-in that I despise

  731. moparisthebest

    personally I still like XMPP best from what I've seen so far so you don't need to boot me from the XSF :D

  732. Ge0rG has left

  733. MattJ

    zinid, I don't really know what you like about XMPP, to be honest

  734. Ge0rG has joined

  735. MattJ

    zinid, to me, I value users being able to choose the client and service that they use, and service operators being able to choose the software they use

  736. MattJ

    I don't particularly value the XML, or any of the other stuff (which I assume you also don't)

  737. zinid

    MattJ, I don't value XMPP quite high honestly except it being a standard

  738. zinid

    MattJ, yeah, I also value users choosing their phones by what battery connector it has

  739. tux has left

  740. MattJ

    If Matrix wants to do their own thing, but also bridge to XMPP, I don't see how that's a problem

  741. MattJ

    It's more choice for users, and service operators

  742. zinid

    I also would love the situation when every fridge has it's own power supply

  743. MattJ

    It would be bad if it wasn't bridged (which it wasn't for a long time), but that is changing

  744. zinid

    and when you have a fridge from Samsung you cannot store stuff in the fridge of your relative's Phillips

  745. MattJ

    From the goals and values perspective, Matrix aligns pretty closely with XMPP. More than any other attempt at "free as in freedom" communication networks around

  746. zinid

    that's a true choice and freedom for users

  747. zinid

    well I disagree

  748. !xsf_Martin has left

  749. !xsf_Martin has joined

  750. !xsf_Martin has left

  751. andrey.g has joined

  752. !xsf_Martin has joined

  753. !xsf_Martin has left

  754. !xsf_Martin has joined

  755. !xsf_Martin has left

  756. !xsf_Martin has joined

  757. MattJ

    Maybe you don't realise the goals and values of the original Jabber project

  758. !xsf_Martin has left

  759. !xsf_Martin has joined

  760. MattJ

    which were pretty much identical to Matrix today

  761. !xsf_Martin has left

  762. !xsf_Martin has joined

  763. !xsf_Martin has left

  764. !xsf_Martin has joined

  765. !xsf_Martin has left

  766. !xsf_Martin has joined

  767. !xsf_Martin has left

  768. !xsf_Martin has joined

  769. zinid

    I don't care about original goals, please again note I like cooperation via standardization, not a competition

  770. !xsf_Martin has left

  771. !xsf_Martin has joined

  772. !xsf_Martin has left

  773. !xsf_Martin has left

  774. zinid

    if you think that competition is always good then go compete for food with your children

  775. MattJ

    And that is one thing that actually annoys *me* - that Matrix folk say "we're all about bridging though!", which is *exactly* where XMPP's roots are too

  776. waqas

    zinid: I'm a bit confused, can you point out the the main thing you disagree with?

  777. MattJ

    But that's just a difference of perspective

  778. pep.

    MattJ, same here

  779. pep.

    (re bridging)

  780. MattJ

    I don't go ranting on HN about it, and I don't bash their project, and I love to see the collaboration happening

  781. zinid

    MattJ, the point is they don't want cooperate

  782. MattJ

    I don't know what silo you are living in, but that's not true

  783. MattJ

    They are cooperating

  784. zinid

    what silo I'm living in...

  785. zinid


  786. Seve

    zinid, if they wanted to cooperate they would just work with XMPP, you mean?

  787. MattJ

    I mean, they are right in this XSF MUC

  788. zinid

    Seve, yes

  789. zinid

    Seve, I don't see anything that stops XMPP from implementing that crazy distributed thing

  790. zinid

    that's the only "advantage" I see, at least what they *now* claim

  791. MattJ

    zinid, if XMPP started today, it wouldn't use XML I'm quite sure

  792. zinid

    MattJ, so let's change the wire format, I suggested that in 2006 IIRC

  793. MattJ

    and XML isn't even one of the things I dislike about XMPP :)

  794. MattJ

    I'm just saying, new projects aren't forced to use old stuff

  795. zinid

    abstract data structures from encoding. BTW, Matrix doesn't do that so it will be "outdated" in a next decade

  796. MattJ

    They are bridging, and that's pretty much all I care about, so we don't produce fragmentation

  797. zinid

    MattJ, are they going to bridge Jingle? Our new brand stuff whatever it is?

  798. MattJ

    zinid, why not? If XMPP is so successful, they only have to lose by not bridging to it :)

  799. zinid


  800. zinid

    it will be definitely successfull when every HN user claims it's so bad in comparison to Matrix πŸ˜€

  801. MattJ

    Just so you know, HN isn't representative of the general population

  802. zinid

    I knew you say that

  803. MattJ

    Whether the people on HN favour one thing or another isn't a good indication of reality, or whether X is better than Y

  804. zinid

    so, XMPP will be definitely successful, that's only the way to get Matrix bridges?

  805. zinid

    so you bet on it?

  806. MattJ

    There are Matrix bridges now

  807. zinid

    I know, but I asked about what will be next

  808. MattJ

    You mentioned Jingle specifically - I don't think Matrix has user->user calling fully sorted out yet, but to be honest neither do we (look at clients dropping Jingle support recently)

  809. zinid

    yeah, I mentioned Jingle for a reason, it's just a classical example of wheel reinvention

  810. MattJ

    Peak Jingle was when the N900 was a thing

  811. MattJ

    and it had built-in XMPP and Jingle calling out of the box, and it just worked

  812. zinid

    anyway, Jingle is just an example

  813. zinid

    let's not change the discussion subject

  814. MattJ

    Sure, but what else? The discussion was the bridging, which I think is a core part of this debate

  815. zinid

    let's say we go MIX

  816. MattJ

    If a good quality bridge exists, the fragmentation argument is not an issue

  817. zinid

    MattJ, what about we go p2p?

  818. zinid

    if, if, if

  819. MattJ

    Treat the bridge just like any of the other clients we have to convince to implement MIX

  820. zinid

    that's more people to convince

  821. MattJ

    And we already have Xabber which never will (perhaps), and so on

  822. pep.

    (Talking about jingle, I found that a few days ago: https://blogs.gnome.org/danni/2010/06/07/muji-multi-user-jingle/)

  823. zinid

    so we will have nothing new?

  824. MattJ

    so let's figure out MIX and then decide whether it's worth Matrix bridges supporting it, eh

  825. MattJ

    Like I said, if we do cool stuff that works, it's in the best interests of Matrix to bridge that stuff

  826. zinid


  827. zinid

    if, probably

  828. MattJ

    If we don't, XMPP is pretty irrelevant and Matrix can drop the bridge and everyone can just use Matrix

  829. zinid

    you see, that's the main problem with gateways, you add another element of complexity

  830. MattJ

    so it's up to us, nothing to do with Matrix

  831. zinid

    so if they drop the network is fragmented?

  832. pep.

    So we're back to resources in the XMPP community

  833. MattJ

    They will drop if XMPP isn't worth supporting, sure, why wouldn't they?

  834. MattJ

    I can name many smaller networks XMPP doesn't bridge to, because nobody cares enough

  835. zinid

    yeah, and we will end up with two IM networks

  836. MattJ

    Some of them are even Standards

  837. zinid

    two irrelevant IM networks πŸ™‚

  838. zinid

    because I doubt any of us will attract masses

  839. MattJ


  840. MattJ

    Not with that attitude :)

  841. zinid

    that's pragmatism

  842. zinid

    ~20 years and where are we?

  843. MattJ

    and not by fighting with each other on HN, or anywhere

  844. zinid

    why do you calling this a fight?

  845. MattJ

    Because that's what it looks like, to many people

  846. zinid

    that's just a debate, actually they try to move the discussion to fight

  847. MattJ

    Maybe you don't intend it to

  848. zinid

    also, what I'm saying at HN is irrelevant according to you, even you put me in the XMPP community

  849. zinid

    *even if

  850. zinid

    and I personally don't "fight" with them elsewhere πŸ˜€

  851. MattJ

    It's not irrelevant to the people on HN, I said HN was not a true indicator of anything outside of HN

  852. MattJ

    But many developers are there for example

  853. zinid

    whatever, I think users will choose the best one, let them decide by reading "fights"

  854. MattJ

    That's what I'm concerned about :)

  855. zinid

    about what part of the statement? πŸ™‚

  856. zinid

    that they will choose the best one? yeah, that's what you want, do I get it right?

  857. MattJ

    Because I think you think those "fights" make XMPP look good

  858. MattJ

    or make Matrix look bad

  859. zinid

    I already said I don't think so, again, I don't care that much, I mostly do that for fun

  860. MattJ

    Many people reading those will just see someone who refuses to accept the new technology replacing their favourite one

  861. MattJ

    something that happens all the time on HN...

  862. zinid

    new technology... okay

  863. MattJ

    XMPP is 15 years older than Matrix, yes

  864. zinid

    let them choose matrix, and I will continue "fighting" because I find that funny enough

  865. zinid

    I also can claim that I'm not the part of XMPP community! In my every post πŸ˜€

  866. pep.

    Anybody can claim anything!

  867. zinid

    Anybody can claim the person is in the community!

  868. zinid

    that's a nice ad hominem argument btw

  869. zinid

    people read that and think "ah, he is from that outdated 20 y.o. XML Cobol taliban", I see

  870. MattJ

    zinid, are you saying that I'm attacking you by saying this?

  871. MattJ

    I'm not. I know you rant about XMPP daily, trust me, I don't think you are an XMPP fanboy :)

  872. zinid

    MattJ, no you attacked me once by saying I'm living in kinda "silo"

  873. Andrew Nenakhov

    MattJ, why would Xabber implement this stupid mix?

  874. MattJ

    zinid, I apologise, my point was that you didn't seem to be accepting the visible facts (that cooperation between the communities is happening)

  875. Andrew Nenakhov

    It already has something far better

  876. zinid

    MattJ, that's not very acceptable for us cooperation

  877. tux has joined

  878. Andrew Nenakhov

    If it has some level of muc compatibility it's failure

  879. zinid

    MattJ, it's like a cooperation with a human and linked dog

  880. tux has left

  881. waqas


  882. tux has joined

  883. zinid

    oh shi~

  884. ak430770 has joined

  885. yvo has left

  886. MattJ

    Andrew Nenakhov, I don't want to start yet another debate :)

  887. Ge0rG

    zinid: now you are trolling... πŸ™„

  888. MattJ

    Andrew Nenakhov, I wasn't judging you for implementing MIX or not, I was just using you as an example of a project that will not implement MIX in a hurry

  889. moparisthebest

    Moreover unless you read Russian you can't yet MattJ :)

  890. MattJ

    Andrew Nenakhov, FWIW I also have not implemented MIX, and have no concrete plans to

  891. moparisthebest

    Need specs

  892. zinid

    Ge0rG, thanks for your thoughtful input

  893. MattJ

    moparisthebest, there are "specs" on the mailing list

  894. MattJ

    i.e. an overview of how it works without the XML parts

  895. MattJ

    I know enough

  896. zinid

    what I see is that community really falls apart actually, the future direction is quite moot

  897. kokonoe has left

  898. zinid

    "community" is implementors and standard writers

  899. Seve

    zinid, what are we missing in that regard?

  900. Ge0rG

    zinid: I think it's really awesome that Matthew and Half-ShotX are here and doing meaningful work on bridging the communities. Yes, bridges are imperfect. However, the ugliness depends on the mismatch between the feature sets, and I think the mismatch between matrix and xmpp isn't that large

  901. MattJ

    zinid, the summit this year had great attendance, it had great discussions and I assume we'll see standards and implementation progress this year

  902. zinid

    MattJ, so what to do with MIX?

  903. zinid

    Daniel convinced me to implement it

  904. Ge0rG

    Maybe we can learn something from matrix about reliable message delivery. That's something I have failed to fix in XMPP for a decade now.

  905. Andrew Nenakhov

    Btw, our glorious group chat protocol can be supported at basic level by processing just two stanza types. Or even one.

  906. Andrew Nenakhov

    Adding support is like, maybe an hour.

  907. Andrew Nenakhov

    Of course without viewing participants , etc

  908. zinid

    MattJ, who will resolve the disambiguation with MIX?

  909. lovetox

    zinid i look forward to the realease, i also want to play with it

  910. MattJ

    zinid, implementers, as always

  911. MattJ

    You potentially already did, by providing the first open server implementation

  912. zinid

    MattJ, I see at least one here who is opposing

  913. MattJ

    There are always people who oppose, even within communities... that's a fact of life, not the end of the road

  914. zinid

    lovetox, the branch is merged, the release is next week with 95% guarantee πŸ˜€

  915. kokonoe has joined

  916. waqas

    Rough consensus and running code is how XMPP has mostly operated

  917. MattJ

    A community isn't a group of people who always agree 100% on everything

  918. MattJ

    It's a group of people who generally have similar goals and values

  919. zinid

    MattJ, I understand there are always opposing, please. But what you suggest is completely stochastic process which I disagree with

  920. MattJ


  921. zinid

    like that implemented, this implemented, those two didn't implement

  922. MattJ

    If ejabberd and Conversations implements MIX, that's a huge milestone, no?

  923. MattJ

    It has to start somewhere

  924. MattJ

    Servers will upgrade, and MIX will be supported

  925. zinid

    MattJ, yes, but I don't see any consensus here, shouldn't I?

  926. zinid


  927. moparisthebest

    that takes time

  928. zinid

    you will answer something very general like always

  929. MattJ

    Sure, probably

  930. zinid

    moparisthebest, that took already 3 years

  931. moparisthebest

    right, and maybe others will implement soon, not so soon, or never, and then you'll have consensus

  932. zinid

    so stochastic process, okay

  933. zinid

    the point is that back then it was not so stochastic, so Matrix indeed looks much better here

  934. Half-ShotX has left

  935. Half-ShotX has joined

  936. MattJ

    zinid, what do you want the XSF to do? Kidnap developers of projects and force them to implement stuff? :)

  937. waqas

    It'd be effective...

  938. MattJ

    That's a signficant advantage that Matrix (currently) has, agility due to the mostly single implementation and deployment

  939. MattJ

    I think they know that, and are making the most of it

  940. labdsf has joined

  941. zinid

    MattJ, I ask the XSF to produce a recommendation

  942. Nekit has left

  943. Nekit has joined

  944. MattJ

    Compliance Suites

  945. zinid

    no need to go with absurd like kidnapping

  946. zinid

    MattJ, I don't see MIX there

  947. MattJ

    So that's the recommendation

  948. zinid

    so MIX is not recommended?

  949. MattJ

    A 2018 XMPP implementation does not need to support MIX

  950. Ge0rG

    zinid: propose it

  951. MattJ

    Which is sensible given that there is no stable implementation of it currently

  952. zinid

    Ge0rG, and what will you do? I'm already working on 5 XEPs, so such arguments don't work anymore to me πŸ™‚

  953. Ge0rG

    zinid: you might still get into last call for 2019

  954. zinid

    going in circles...

  955. j.r has left

  956. zinid

    and you conveniently ignored the question about you doing what πŸ™‚

  957. Ge0rG

    zinid: im not going to implement mix yet

  958. zinid

    Ge0rG, but you can "propose" something (not sure what)

  959. blabla has joined

  960. labdsf has left

  961. Ge0rG

    zinid: send a mail to standards@ and ask for inclusion of mix into compliance Suite 2019

  962. j.r has joined

  963. zinid

    I'm really lost, who can clarify: 1) XSF doesn't produce recommendation without implementations. But constantly discussing something at endless meetings to come to some agreement? 2) XSF is only a standardization body, but it doesn't produce specs 3) XSF continues telling about the mythical community, but doesn't represent any do I get it right? What is it now responsible for? I see only XEP submitting process, which takes a lot of time looking at my own contributions, but that's kinda okay: lack of time, lazyness, understaffed

  964. zinid

    Ge0rG, and to end up in endless discussions?

  965. zinid

    like the one I had recently with you: "remove that MUST!!!"

  966. alacer has joined

  967. Half-ShotX has left

  968. Half-ShotX has joined

  969. Half-ShotX has left

  970. Half-ShotX has joined

  971. Half-ShotX has left

  972. Half-ShotX has joined

  973. Half-ShotX has left

  974. Half-ShotX has joined

  975. Half-ShotX has left

  976. Half-ShotX has joined

  977. Half-ShotX has left

  978. Half-ShotX has joined

  979. Half-ShotX has left

  980. Half-ShotX has joined

  981. Half-ShotX has left

  982. Half-ShotX has joined

  983. Half-ShotX has left

  984. Half-ShotX has joined

  985. Half-ShotX has left

  986. Half-ShotX has left

  987. Half-ShotX has joined

  988. Half-ShotX has left

  989. Half-ShotX has joined

  990. Half-ShotX has left

  991. Half-ShotX has left

  992. Half-ShotX has joined

  993. Half-ShotX has left

  994. Half-ShotX has joined

  995. Half-ShotX has left

  996. Half-ShotX has joined

  997. Half-ShotX has left

  998. Half-ShotX has joined

  999. Half-ShotX has left

  1000. Half-ShotX has joined

  1001. Half-ShotX has left

  1002. Half-ShotX has joined

  1003. Half-ShotX has left

  1004. Half-ShotX has joined

  1005. Half-ShotX has left

  1006. Half-ShotX has joined

  1007. Half-ShotX has left

  1008. Half-ShotX has joined

  1009. Half-ShotX has left

  1010. Half-ShotX has joined

  1011. Half-ShotX has left

  1012. Half-ShotX has joined

  1013. Half-ShotX has left

  1014. Half-ShotX has joined

  1015. Half-ShotX has left

  1016. Half-ShotX has joined

  1017. Half-ShotX has left

  1018. Half-ShotX has joined

  1019. Half-ShotX has left

  1020. efrit has joined

  1021. jmpman has joined

  1022. Zash

    zinid: This is why I think there should be something separate from the compliance suite that describes a vision, what "we" want XMPP too look like in the near future. Compliance suites are mostly about what we think XMPP should look like right now.

  1023. zinid

    Zash, I think this idea will face some opposition instantly

  1024. ralphm has joined

  1025. zinid

    XSF is reduced to XEP submitting process

  1026. zinid

    I see no other value currently

  1027. alacer has left

  1028. Andrew Nenakhov

    We won't support compliance suites at all.

  1029. Andrew Nenakhov

    Cause we intend to drop some xeps that are in it completely

  1030. zinid

    Andrew Nenakhov, what's the point in being so reluctant? Do you think I like MIX or carbons or something?

  1031. Andrew Nenakhov

    That not what I'm telling

  1032. zinid

    well it looks like that

  1033. zinid

    you suggest nothing as replacement

  1034. Andrew Nenakhov

    But we have that vision you're talking about

  1035. Andrew Nenakhov

    zinid, actually we do.

  1036. Wiktor has left

  1037. Wiktor has joined

  1038. Andrew Nenakhov

    One of the reasons we still didn't release spec for our group chat is cause it is based on some other protocols

  1039. zinid


  1040. j.r has left

  1041. Andrew Nenakhov

    We call em xep-0XXX reliable message delivery Xep-0RRR Message Retract and replace

  1042. zinid

    reliable delivery again?

  1043. Andrew Nenakhov

    Not again. For once.

  1044. zinid


  1045. pep.

    What's your magical solution

  1046. pep.

    I'm interested

  1047. Half-ShotX has joined

  1048. Andrew Nenakhov

    Get server id from destination server. It acts as a recipe and also tells the client a server time. Thus allowing to sync message orders on all parties

  1049. Andrew Nenakhov

    Tricky part is making it work with carbons

  1050. zinid

    destination server?

  1051. Half-ShotX has left

  1052. Andrew Nenakhov

    And to account for potential not delivery of some msgs

  1053. pep.

    What does reliable delivery mean to you? Is that message ordering?

  1054. Andrew Nenakhov

    Yes, if it's a simple chat between two persons, destination server is sender's server

  1055. blabla has left

  1056. Andrew Nenakhov

    If it's a group chat, receipt is generated by group chat server

  1057. Ge0rG

    Andrew Nenakhov: just request carbons with a special flag, and then your server sends carbons of your own messages with the server-id

  1058. Andrew Nenakhov

    Reliable delivery means ensuring sending client that message was delivered to where it intended to. If not, sender will retry. And protocol must not duplicate messages if retry is attempted.

  1059. waqas

    So the proposal allows strict serializability of messages? Between two full JIDs or bare JIDs or what?

  1060. zinid

    yeah, looks like synchronous call to me

  1061. Andrew Nenakhov

    Works for us well.

  1062. zinid

    yeah, I can say the same about current mess with IDs πŸ˜€

  1063. Andrew Nenakhov

    It's not really complex. As I said,tricky part was carbons and capability to support legacy clients without fuss

  1064. waqas

    Andrew Nenakhov: Is there a link to the proposal?

  1065. Andrew Nenakhov

    I can give link to Google doc. It's in Russian though.

  1066. zinid

    waqas, it's in Russian, I tried to read it once πŸ˜€

  1067. Andrew Nenakhov

    No you didn't.

  1068. zinid

    I did

  1069. Andrew Nenakhov

    Also it evolved since that time.

  1070. zinid

    I *tried*

  1071. waqas

    You mentioned server time, does it rely on the server acting as the authority, and using timestamps to order?

  1072. Andrew Nenakhov

    waqas, yes.

  1073. waqas

    What happens when there are multiple servers involved (i.e., s2s)?

  1074. zinid

    I would prefer lamport clock and rely on timestamp in the case of conflicts only

  1075. Zash

    What happens when one server has its clock waaaay out of sync?

  1076. zinid

    so definitely I don't like relying solely on timestamps

  1077. Andrew Nenakhov

    Reliable delivery cares to only deliver to destination server. Once my message is on my server, I get a recipe, the rest is like normal xmpp

  1078. zinid

    Zash, his protocol assumes the time never goes backward

  1079. waqas

    Andrew Nenakhov: Okay, so this means the client is in sync with its server, but this doesn't try to make all clients in a chat sync across servers. Do I understand that correctly?

  1080. Andrew Nenakhov

    Yes, you understand correctly.

  1081. Zash

    Good thing time doesn't go backwards then. Clocks OTOH...

  1082. Andrew Nenakhov

    For a two person chats. In group chats ots a bit different

  1083. zinid

    Zash, so you basically should just prevent the server from stopping if you detect backward screw

  1084. Half-ShotX has joined

  1085. zinid

    also, need to store the last timestamp on disc for that πŸ˜€

  1086. 404.city has left

  1087. zinid

    *from starting, sorry

  1088. Andrew Nenakhov

    Let me check something...

  1089. Zash

    Tho nothing likes time jumps, most NTP things should be trying hard to do things gradually these days, maybe it's not too much to worry about :)

  1090. zinid

    Zash, yeah

  1091. zinid

    unless you start the server on some crappy embedded device

  1092. melvo has joined

  1093. zinid

    and if you don't have that protection you will face some fancy side effects which is hard to debug and understand πŸ™‚

  1094. zinid

    so basically, server should go full ACID in timestamp generation

  1095. Zash

    Hard to do anyting if something starts before network is up after some failure that reset the clock to 1970

  1096. Andrew Nenakhov

    Well yes that protocol relied on more or less consistent time on authority server.

  1097. zinid

    not sure how this will work in clustering where you cannot guarantee ACID due to CAP

  1098. Zash

    Global transactions!

  1099. wurstsalat has joined

  1100. Zash

    Have the entire world agree before commiting!

  1101. zinid

    Andrew Nenakhov, what about clustering? Should the nodes synchronize time?

  1102. Half-ShotX has left

  1103. Andrew Nenakhov

    I'm not qualified enough in clustering questions. 😁

  1104. zinid

    well I'm just telling that time synchronization tolerance is a hard problem

  1105. Andrew Nenakhov

    But I'm pretty sure that does not have to be part of a protocol.

  1106. zinid

    so we should avoid it in the spec

  1107. Andrew Nenakhov

    If servers generating stamps are slightly out of sync it won't have any really bad effects

  1108. Andrew Nenakhov

    Maybe some msgs will appear in different order

  1109. melvo has left

  1110. Andrew Nenakhov

    We treat situations if you send 3 msgs and they arrive on different time and this reordered as ok.

  1111. zinid

    lamport clock anyone?

  1112. melvo has joined

  1113. zinid

    this is already resolved in 1970

  1114. zinid

    okay, whatever, that's not a drastical change in the protocol

  1115. melvo has left

  1116. zinid

    though I think the ID must be generated by a client using lamport clock and formed into a vector clock in a conversation with other party

  1117. Half-ShotX has joined

  1118. Andrew Nenakhov

    I think that can be done actually.

  1119. waqas

    Synchronization stops being a hard problem when you accept a central authority, which is what it looks like has happened here

  1120. Andrew Nenakhov

    Yes. We postulate that in general sense users server is an authority.

  1121. waqas

    Sync is only hard if you need to figure out distributed consensus for your serializability without a central authority

  1122. zinid

    waqas, which just moves the problem to this central authority

  1123. Andrew Nenakhov

    Cause we heavily rely on message archive

  1124. zinid

    central authority can consist of several nodes

  1125. zinid

    and actually MUST

  1126. Andrew Nenakhov

    That's why we are getting rid of offline messages, for example

  1127. Andrew Nenakhov

    Cause we fetch msgs from an archive anyway

  1128. lumi has joined

  1129. Nekit has left

  1130. Half-ShotX has left

  1131. waqas

    zinid: MUST? The vast majority of XMPP servers today are single node, generally single process, often single thread.

  1132. zinid

    waqas: okay

  1133. waqas

    zinid: Note that I fully agree with you in principle: clustered nodes should be allowed.

  1134. waqas

    But I suspect making things such that it's the server's problem to sync things up between its nodes, and not every single client implementation has to worry or even know about it is the way to go.

  1135. Andrew Nenakhov

    zinid, how big can one cluster time difference be?

  1136. Andrew Nenakhov

    Realistic estimate? I don't have much experience with those

  1137. waqas

    The answer is it can vary a lot, and there are all kinds of algorithms and software and databases to help you in this area. This is up to the server implementation.

  1138. Half-ShotX has joined

  1139. waqas

    This is essentially the distributed database problem, and there are many distributed databases, and probably just as many approaches to tackling this.

  1140. zinid

    Andrew Nenakhov: in my practice once and it was full of sync due to ntp daemon failure

  1141. labdsf has joined

  1142. Andrew Nenakhov

    Well I think that's not really a protocol problem. I like idea of vector time actually, but we didn't include it because we've got too much on our hands already

  1143. Andrew Nenakhov

    So for now we settled for the simplest approach

  1144. zinid

    usually clocks are synced very well

  1145. zinid

    sure, not a protocol problem, it will be my problem

  1146. zinid

    okay, I already used to this in XMPP world

  1147. zinid

    we resolve only *your* problems

  1148. waqas

    A XEP should not attempt to solve an implementation's internal details

  1149. zinid

    what if I say I have no problems?

  1150. zinid

    as I server dev I really have no problems you're constantly discussing: mam, ids, routing, carbons

  1151. zinid

    why would I solve your problems when you don't care about mine?

  1152. zinid

    fair question

  1153. Andrew Nenakhov

    Hey, we have server developer too, you are no longer alone

  1154. waqas

    I'm a server dev. Ultimately the server was written for end users, and their problems matter :)

  1155. zinid

    I'm a cluster server dev πŸ˜€

  1156. Andrew Nenakhov

    waqas, what server are you developing?

  1157. efrit has left

  1158. waqas

    Andrew Nenakhov: I'm on the Prosody team.

  1159. zinid

    Andrew Nenakhov, none πŸ™‚

  1160. zinid

    currently none

  1161. Andrew Nenakhov


  1162. zinid

    yeah, always remember how the XSF community is formed πŸ˜€

  1163. Andrew Nenakhov

    Evgeny you are a bitter and jaded old man

  1164. zinid

    Andrew Nenakhov, just as you!

  1165. Andrew Nenakhov

    Scarred by lost battles

  1166. waqas

    I'm young and innocent.

  1167. labdsf has left

  1168. Andrew Nenakhov

    And traumatized by the rise of Signals and Telegrams

  1169. Andrew Nenakhov

    But not all is lost and we will prevail

  1170. zinid

    everything is lost already

  1171. Half-ShotX has left

  1172. Half-ShotX has joined

  1173. Andrew Nenakhov

    Join us, and together we'll defeat the emperor and rule the Galaxy!

  1174. neshtaxmpp has joined

  1175. Andrew Nenakhov

    Oh sorry got carried away. Wrong script.

  1176. zinid

    you guys cannot even defeat Matrix!

  1177. Andrew Nenakhov

    Yes we can!

  1178. waqas

    zinid: We are missing Neo obviously

  1179. zinid

    yeah, being a dog on a leash is a good achievement!

  1180. Andrew Nenakhov

    But really we're mostly aiming at Slack's market

  1181. zinid

    maybe our Master will improve our leash!

  1182. zinid

    maybe not

  1183. waqas

    That's an important thing by the way: Different people in the XMPP community are focused on separate messaging problems. Team/company chat like Slack, consumer chat like whatsapp/messenger/etc, special purpose stuff like video conferencing (Zoom, etc).

  1184. zinid

    not sure what XMPP community is

  1185. zinid

    I'm really lost after today's debate

  1186. Andrew Nenakhov

    I think xmpp should be a universal messaging protocol.

  1187. Zash

    The intersection of a bunch of unrelated communities, come together to write XEPs and argue about things, and we're fresh out of XEPs.

  1188. zinid

    Andrew Nenakhov, that was a goal in 1999

  1189. zinid

    we failed

  1190. zinid

    20 years passed, in IT that's an epoch

  1191. Andrew Nenakhov

    Because xmpp always came with a knife to a gun fight

  1192. zinid

    so you suggest some nuclear weapon? with that your proposals? πŸ˜€

  1193. Andrew Nenakhov

    Yes. We have some wunderwaffen in our secret labs

  1194. Andrew Nenakhov

    But even without wunderwaffen, so far xmpp developers produced exactly ZERO great xmpp clients

  1195. zinid

    I'm fine with Conversations, and seems like Dino is back on track

  1196. Andrew Nenakhov

    Most close client that I can call great is surprisingly Xabber for Web

  1197. Andrew Nenakhov

    Conversations is ravaged by cryprocancer

  1198. rtq3 has joined

  1199. Half-ShotX has left

  1200. Half-ShotX has joined

  1201. waqas

    Ah yes, the crypto faction

  1202. zinid

    true, but I can live with that

  1203. zinid

    there is a switch to disable cancer, in Advanced Preferences

  1204. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1205. !xsf_Martin has left

  1206. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1207. Andrew Nenakhov

    What I also have about it is that it omits too many important xmpp parts,like statuses and presence information

  1208. !xsf_Martin has left

  1209. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1210. !xsf_Martin has left

  1211. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1212. !xsf_Martin has left

  1213. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1214. !xsf_Martin has left

  1215. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1216. !xsf_Martin has left

  1217. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1218. Andrew Nenakhov

    I hate not being able to see who's online. I get this 'always online' concept but it's not always good

  1219. !xsf_Martin has left

  1220. zinid

    and vcards!

  1221. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1222. Andrew Nenakhov


  1223. !xsf_Martin has left

  1224. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1225. !xsf_Martin has left

  1226. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1227. !xsf_Martin has left

  1228. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1229. Andrew Nenakhov

    Im actually happy with that recent new vCard XEP

  1230. !xsf_Martin has left

  1231. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1232. !xsf_Martin has left

  1233. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1234. Andrew Nenakhov

    Old vCard is a shame

  1235. !xsf_Martin has left

  1236. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1237. !xsf_Martin has left

  1238. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1239. !xsf_Martin has left

  1240. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1241. !xsf_Martin has left

  1242. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1243. zinid

    yeah, vcards is our main problem...

  1244. !xsf_Martin has left

  1245. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1246. zinid

    and IDs

  1247. !xsf_Martin has left

  1248. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1249. !xsf_Martin has left

  1250. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1251. !xsf_Martin has left

  1252. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1253. !xsf_Martin has left

  1254. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1255. pep.

    !xsf_Martin, you're blinking

  1256. Andrew Nenakhov

    IDs are important.

  1257. !xsf_Martin has left

  1258. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1259. Andrew Nenakhov

    I'd say extremely important.

  1260. !xsf_Martin has left

  1261. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1262. !xsf_Martin has left

  1263. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1264. ThibG has left

  1265. Andrew Nenakhov

    Too bad they weren't enforced in 1999

  1266. !xsf_Martin has left

  1267. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1268. ThibG has joined

  1269. !xsf_Martin has left

  1270. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1271. !xsf_Martin has left

  1272. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1273. !xsf_Martin has left

  1274. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1275. !xsf_Martin has left

  1276. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1277. !xsf_Martin has left

  1278. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1279. !xsf_Martin has left

  1280. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1281. !xsf_Martin has left

  1282. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1283. !xsf_Martin has left

  1284. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1285. !xsf_Martin has left

  1286. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1287. ralphm has left

  1288. zinid

    first attempt with IDs was not so successful, politely saying πŸ™‚

  1289. !xsf_Martin has left

  1290. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1291. !xsf_Martin has left

  1292. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1293. Andrew Nenakhov

    Which one?

  1294. !xsf_Martin has left

  1295. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1296. zinid

    Andrew Nenakhov, what about stream management, do you eliminate them with your proposal?

  1297. !xsf_Martin has left

  1298. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1299. !xsf_Martin has left

  1300. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1301. zinid

    I mean do you eliminate that stupid SM counter?

  1302. !xsf_Martin has left

  1303. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1304. !xsf_Martin has left

  1305. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1306. Andrew Nenakhov

    Yes, of course. My hate for 198 is widely known

  1307. !xsf_Martin has left

  1308. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1309. !xsf_Martin has left

  1310. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1311. zinid

    right, just asking to understand what you don't hate πŸ˜€

  1312. !xsf_Martin has left

  1313. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1314. !xsf_Martin has left

  1315. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1316. Andrew Nenakhov

    Vcards! )

  1317. !xsf_Martin has left

  1318. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1319. Andrew Nenakhov


  1320. Andrew Nenakhov


  1321. zinid


  1322. !xsf_Martin has left

  1323. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1324. !xsf_Martin has left

  1325. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1326. !xsf_Martin has left

  1327. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1328. Andrew Nenakhov

    Also, federation )

  1329. !xsf_Martin has left

  1330. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1331. !xsf_Martin has left

  1332. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1333. !xsf_Martin has left

  1334. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1335. !xsf_Martin has left

  1336. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1337. !xsf_Martin has left

  1338. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1339. !xsf_Martin has left

  1340. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1341. Andrew Nenakhov

    0071 I liked too, actually. But *they* killed it.

  1342. !xsf_Martin has left

  1343. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1344. !xsf_Martin has left

  1345. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1346. !xsf_Martin has left

  1347. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1348. pep.

    Can somebody temporarily kick or ban !xsf_Martin?

  1349. !xsf_Martin has left

  1350. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1351. zinid

    that was SamWhited mostly, he is not in the XSF anymore, we can resurrect it

  1352. Half-ShotX has left

  1353. Half-ShotX has joined

  1354. zinid

    yeah, that XEP has attracted so many debates, probably the most controversy XEP I ever seen

  1355. neshtaxmpp has left

  1356. waqas

    I'm somewhat to blame for XHTML-IM getting deprecated

  1357. Andrew Nenakhov

    I think we'll implement it despite deprecation. One day.

  1358. j.r has joined

  1359. blabla has joined

  1360. waqas

    I'd done a study of XMPP clients implementing XHTML-IM, and basically found security issues (RCE vulnerabilities) in almost all of them. I'd done a presentation at an XMPP Summit about it too. This was quite a few years back.

  1361. zinid

    I recall the same about carbons or something like that

  1362. zinid

    when a lot of clients were affected

  1363. zinid

    and there was a billion laugh attack...

  1364. Andrew Nenakhov

    Vulnerabilities are bad. But how come browsers are not vulnerable?

  1365. labdsf has joined

  1366. waqas

    Web applications have vulnerabilities all the time

  1367. zinid

    yeah, super-puper Signal for instance

  1368. zinid

    that was glorious fail

  1369. waqas

    And when you are displaying user provided rich HTML input, and your code to prevent <script> tag injections and such isn't airtight, suddenly someone can send a message to take over your client.

  1370. Andrew Nenakhov

    They are vulnerable because they have js

  1371. waqas

    If it's a web client, you can e.g., take over the XMPP session by just resetting the password or whatever

  1372. Andrew Nenakhov

    But there was no js in 0071

  1373. waqas

    Yes, but that doesn't prevent me from sending you a message which has js

  1374. waqas

    And if your code can't detect it and clean it up, bad things can happen to you

  1375. zinid

    Andrew Nenakhov, there were a lot of arguments about these in that 0071 debate

  1376. Andrew Nenakhov

    Of course.

  1377. Half-ShotX has left

  1378. Half-ShotX has joined

  1379. waqas

    And my evidence for this being a real problem was reviewing ~10 XMPP clients which implemented XHTML-IM, and getting all of them to remotely run my JS.

  1380. waqas

    Including at least one desktop client, which basically gave me full access to the OS

  1381. Andrew Nenakhov

    waqas, anyway, browsers exist. It's a proof enough that html code can be safely contained by a parser

  1382. waqas

    Browsers get constant security updates. And web applications have security issues all the time.

  1383. Andrew Nenakhov

    Web apps have updates because they are within same sandbox where scripts work are

  1384. waqas

    Yes, and securing browsers is a hard, non-trivial problem. All browsers come with security teams of their own. This isn't true for XMPP clients.

  1385. Andrew Nenakhov

    And we dont need much in xmpp. B I U and maybe UL OL, that's about it

  1386. alacer has joined

  1387. labdsf has left

  1388. Andrew Nenakhov

    I'm pretty sure that anything resembling scripts or styles can be safely dropped without too much effort.

  1389. Andrew Nenakhov

    Most likely those clients just used a ready components like web views or something

  1390. lorddavidiii has joined

  1391. moparisthebest

    which always include a full running javascript engine

  1392. moparisthebest

    hence the problem

  1393. Andrew Nenakhov


  1394. j.r has left

  1395. waqas

    "I'm pretty sure that anything resembling scripts or styles can be safely dropped without too much effort." β€” this is what I disagree with. Sanitizing HTML is not easy.

  1396. pep.

    XHTML-IM is not HTML

  1397. waqas

    HTML and also CSS (which can also contain JS)

  1398. waqas

    It isn't, but you can't block me from sending you stuff that's not in the spec, and if your client doesn't clean that out, I win.

  1399. pep.

    Sure, but I can be pretty strict about it, (and I should)

  1400. Half-ShotX has left

  1401. Half-ShotX has joined

  1402. pep.

    It's not like I had to support whatever crap you throw at me, like browsers do

  1403. waqas

    pep.: That's basically what I found: clients trying to be strict about it and failing.

  1404. pep.

    Ok, so what, it's better to take them down rather than fix them?

  1405. waqas

    I even wrote a library to be strict about it: https://github.com/zeen/xhtml-im.js/blob/master/xhtml-im.js

  1406. pep.


  1407. waqas

    2013, that was quite some time ago

  1408. Andrew Nenakhov

    Actually I think that due to specifics of our medium all css can be just dropped.

  1409. Andrew Nenakhov

    No colors. No scripts. No margins.

  1410. waqas

    What do you actually want to keep?

  1411. pep.

    What about providing tests then for devs to use, alongside your reference impl that they can also reuse, instead of taking the XEP down and creating 393

  1412. Andrew Nenakhov

    B I U UL OL, quotes

  1413. j.r has joined

  1414. Andrew Nenakhov

    393 and 394 are abominations

  1415. waqas

    Just to be clear, I didn't take personally take the XEP down. I'd mostly presented my findings, and the discourse on XHTML-IM from that point was negative. This was around when there was a Last Call for the XEP to become final.

  1416. Half-ShotX has left

  1417. rtq3 has left

  1418. rtq3 has joined

  1419. lorddavidiii has left

  1420. alacer has left

  1421. Half-ShotX has joined

  1422. alacer has joined

  1423. alacer has left

  1424. alacer has joined

  1425. alacer has left

  1426. j.r has left

  1427. j.r has joined

  1428. Half-ShotX has left

  1429. Half-ShotX has joined

  1430. zinid

    that was quite moot decision and basically heavily relied on personal point of view, I already said that in that mail list discussion

  1431. zinid

    like "fixing clients" vs "we're doomed"

  1432. tux has left

  1433. zinid

    you cannot debate between those point of views

  1434. zinid


  1435. l has left

  1436. waqas

    zinid: The XSF (XMPP Standards Foundation) has tried hard to be a neutral org which just focuses on standards. There's no wing of the XSF where you send folks out to fix things in clients, and everything relies on individual projects implementing spec updates. There's also no strong outreach to the community.

  1437. waqas

    I'm not a fan of this state of affairs, for what it's worth

  1438. zinid

    waqas, well, maybe I'm currently not very clear, but whatever

  1439. zinid

    "can we rely on client devs: yes or no"

  1440. zinid

    let's say it that

  1441. waqas

    I'm saying "fixing clients" isn't something the XSF can actually do

  1442. zinid

    yes, yes

  1443. zinid

    waqas, and no, XSF is not focused on standards

  1444. zinid

    XSF is focused on XEP publishing process

  1445. Andrew Nenakhov


  1446. zinid

    it has converted recently in a completely beaurocratic body

  1447. waqas

    Yes, but that's what "focused on standards" has been defined as. Note that this is by design, many /wanted/ this to happen, and for us to be more similar to e.g., the IETF.

  1448. Matthew

    > <@_xmpp_pep.=2fxsf=40muc.xmpp.org:matrix.org> Matthew, well played, I see you've started another meaningful discussion :P gah, sorry all

  1449. zinid

    (sorry for the spelling, I can never remember how this word is spelled in english)

  1450. lorddavidiii has joined

  1451. kokonoe has left

  1452. zinid

    waqas, well I see a very little point in the XSF now in comparison to the IETF

  1453. zinid

    anyone can go straight to the IETF, where there will no be a bunch of judges

  1454. oli

    xep publishing process. use a collaborative wiki ...

  1455. waqas

    "where there will no be a bunch of judges" β€” you've never been part of the IETF process, have you...

  1456. zinid

    waqas, the IETF is a platform which gives you tools to develop a standard

  1457. zinid

    waqas, no, I wasn't

  1458. zinid

    even so, why should I care who will judge me?

  1459. zinid

    so we copied the worst from the IETF?

  1460. zinid

    what's the real meaning of the XSF now?

  1461. zinid

    not how it was, not on the paper, but now de facto

  1462. waqas

    A body which oversees the standards process for XMPP and it's XEPs

  1463. kokonoe has joined

  1464. Half-ShotX has left

  1465. Half-ShotX has joined

  1466. Andrew Nenakhov

    I wonder how will this body react to our XEPs

  1467. zinid

    same as IETF?

  1468. waqas

    Similar. The IETF is generic. The XSF for example worked within the IETF framework to get the XMPP RFCs published.

  1469. zinid

    waqas, so IETF restricted to "oversee" the XMPP related specs only

  1470. zinid

    as a standard write why would I care?

  1471. zinid


  1472. waqas

    The IETF is quite a bit about the process, yes

  1473. zinid

    yeah, same stuff the XSF converted to

  1474. lorddavidiii has left

  1475. waqas

    The few paragraphs here basically describe what the XSF has been about: https://xmpp.org/about/xmpp-standards-foundation.html

  1476. Andrew Nenakhov

    Zinid let's form our own council, just you and us. Whatever we agree to, it'll be standard.

  1477. waqas

    Note that I'm probably in agreement with you that that's not particularly helpful in making open messaging and XMPP succeed and compete against other solutions.

  1478. lorddavidiii has joined

  1479. zinid

    Andrew Nenakhov, nah, I don't invent wheels, sorry

  1480. zinid

    Andrew Nenakhov, I can always got to IETF, which I think I will with my XOR

  1481. zinid


  1482. Andrew Nenakhov

    Xmpp currently badly needs weels.

  1483. zinid


  1484. waqas

    And the XMPP Software Foundation used to be the Jabber Software Foundation, and that old thing was much more in line with what you are hoping for.

  1485. Andrew Nenakhov

    What is 'your XOR'

  1486. waqas

    *XMPP Standards Foundation

  1487. zinid

    Andrew Nenakhov, http://upload.zinid.ru/xeps.html first link

  1488. zinid

    waqas, exactly, so I kinda agree with Ge0rG's rantings

  1489. waqas

    I too agree with Ge0rG's rantings :)

  1490. lovetox

    I can only speak from my experience, and yes xeps and process etc are sometimes a painpoint, but i dont feel this is the reason that holds the xmpp community back

  1491. zinid

    we constantly laugh about endless Matrix's TODO, but we don't even have any, how ironic

  1492. waqas

    lovetox: I'm curious about what you think the reason is

  1493. lovetox

    its not like there are a lot of developers who want to do stuff, but are actively inhibited by process of xsf or xeps

  1494. zinid

    lovetox, as a server dev I can do a lot actually, I'm currently very bored

  1495. lovetox

    the reason is to few developers in my opinion

  1496. UsL has left

  1497. UsL has joined

  1498. zinid

    so I even resorted to implement that dredful MIX, ha

  1499. Andrew Nenakhov

    Well, currently I have 5-6 developers working on XMPP full time

  1500. Andrew Nenakhov

    zinid, you shouldn't have.

  1501. zinid

    Andrew Nenakhov, but you didn't provide anything, and what should I do?

  1502. zinid

    I'm kinda stuck in the development

  1503. zinid

    really, what should I implement?

  1504. Andrew Nenakhov

    You didn't ask. More precisely you said you're not interested )

  1505. lovetox

    yeah zinid its also not about server development

  1506. lovetox

    its about good clients with nice GUI

  1507. lovetox

    nobody wants to do that

  1508. Andrew Nenakhov

    Good clients can't exist without good servers

  1509. zinid

    lovetox, I'm not competent enough

  1510. lovetox


  1511. Half-ShotX has left

  1512. Half-ShotX has joined

  1513. Guus

    lovetox - I was talking to a company that's actively looking to sponsor project to do just that.

  1514. lovetox

    Andrew Nenakhov, i feel servers are good enough

  1515. Andrew Nenakhov

    Nope. Not yet.

  1516. lovetox

    its not servers who hold us back :)

  1517. zinid

    lovetox, he has his own vision πŸ˜€

  1518. Andrew Nenakhov

    In telegram I can log in and in mere seconds get a list of recent conversations and their metadata

  1519. waqas

    I don't think lack of standards is a real issue. I think better-than-the-competition UIs are the real issue.

  1520. zinid

    Andrew Nenakhov, that's not a problem with servers, c'mon

  1521. Andrew Nenakhov

    How many unread messages, which are read by recipient, etc

  1522. Andrew Nenakhov

    > Andrew Nenakhov, that's not a problem with servers, c'mon It absolutely is.

  1523. zinid

    Andrew Nenakhov, and? What do you want from servers? To implement what?

  1524. ak430770 has left

  1525. ak430770 has joined

  1526. Andrew Nenakhov

    Mam does not contain metadata. Mam does not allow getting recent msgs from conversations

  1527. Guus

    lovetox: I agree that we're currently lacking the resources to create good UI/UX in many frontend-based projects. I don't think that we're unable to get these resources though - I think we generally didn't bother to try.

  1528. lovetox

    such things are nice features the cherry on the top, we fail at much more basic stuff

  1529. Guus

    which is what I like about having Matrix as a mirror: to me, their client made it painfully clear what we're lacking.

  1530. waqas


  1531. lovetox

    Guus, yes i think it also doesnt take much

  1532. Andrew Nenakhov

    Guus, I'm more often looking at Telegram

  1533. lovetox

    pick 3-4 clients, assign 2 motivated developers to each

  1534. lovetox

    i think this goes a long way

  1535. waqas

    Who does the assignment and who pays for this?

  1536. waqas

    And who decides what these devs should do?

  1537. Andrew Nenakhov

    Well I'm paying my developers and decide what they do. :)

  1538. lovetox

    thats not how i meant this, i meant maybe we are getting lucky and someone comes up

  1539. lovetox


  1540. lorddavidiii has left

  1541. waqas

    That's one way to do it, and that's also what the Matrix team is doing.

  1542. lovetox

    but yeah a bit of money could help

  1543. waqas

    But money means you need profits (unless this is all donation money). The Matrix folks raised capital, which does interest things to motivations and direction.

  1544. Guus

    I strongly believe that it is up to the individual projects to arrange this for themselves.

  1545. Andrew Nenakhov


  1546. Guus

    The XSF, however, can facilitate, and spread 'best practices'

  1547. waqas

    Guus: And there's no evidence that that would really succeed at scale.

  1548. Guus

    I tried to supply a couple of them a couple of days before

  1549. Andrew Nenakhov

    Current approach didn't succeed thus far

  1550. Guus

    waqas true, but there's sufficient evidence that not doing anything does not get us _any_ progress.

  1551. waqas

    Guus: You basically get one or two winners, and their philosophy "wins", except most of the community doesn't like the currently popular UIs.

  1552. Andrew Nenakhov

    So maybe it's worth a try to do things differently

  1553. Guus

    waqas I think we're talking about different things

  1554. waqas

    All vision and future-oriented conversations in this room ^

  1555. Guus

    waqas the 'winners' would be those clients that get adopted by the general public end user, right?

  1556. waqas

    Guus: So… Pidgin?

  1557. waqas

    I suspect it has the largest user base, no?

  1558. Guus

    I don't think so

  1559. Andrew Nenakhov

    I don't think pidgin has any relevance these days

  1560. Guus

    more like the what-apps of these days

  1561. Half-ShotX has left

  1562. Half-ShotX has joined

  1563. lorddavidiii has joined

  1564. Guus

    waqas I'm unsure if I understand your argument

  1565. Guus

    (or if we're arguing the same thing)

  1566. lovetox

    Its really basics i think, for example Gajim cant find someone who makes a nice installer for MacOS for years, though the application runs fine on it

  1567. labdsf has joined

  1568. ak430770 has left

  1569. waqas

    What would be good is even a clear idea of what "we" want. You said the XSF can facilitate and spread best practices for example. It'd be great to know what those could be. Is the crypto crowd defining the best practices? Is the IETF-like crowd? is the UX-first crowd?

  1570. waqas

    It's hard to even know if I like or dislike an argument when you don't know what the argument is trying to achieve in the long term.

  1571. Guus

    My thoughts are: Many here seem to agree that a common issue with most of our frontends are a lack of UI/UX. Also, a lack of funding is seen as a key issue that prevent problems from being fixed. As these issues are common in our group, I see a role for the XSF to facilitate improving on this point - but in the manner of "helping individual projects to raise money and/or design resources" as opposed to "raise money/hire designers and donate that to projects."

  1572. Half-ShotX has left

  1573. waqas

    Guus: I can agree with that, with one concern: many projects/developers have their own incompatible ideas for what good UX is, and I'm not sure if there's much money in the ecosystem.

  1574. lovetox

    It happened often that users tell me they use Gajim in their company

  1575. Guus

    waqas I don't think that either is true. I think that the majority of projects/developers realize that they don't know what a good design is, and that they need help.

  1576. lovetox

    I always think, yeah nice for you, but it would be nice if the company gives something back to the project

  1577. Guus

    waqas also, I'm pretty sure that there's much money in the ecosystem, but that we're failing to raise it (or even _attempt_ to raise it)

  1578. lovetox

    and be it only a developer that spends 1 hour per week

  1579. lorddavidiii has left

  1580. Guus

    lovetox I think you'd be surprised how many people would actually be willing to do that, if they're asked to.

  1581. Guus

    I suspect that our biggest issue is that we're not asking.

  1582. lovetox

    you are right, i never asked, i will do next time

  1583. waqas

    I agree with that Guus

  1584. waqas

    There was a time when there were a lot of folks offering to do stuff

  1585. labdsf has left

  1586. labdsf has joined

  1587. waqas

    We were talking about forming teams of volunteers and some of that actually happened

  1588. Guus

    lovetox: and I think that there might be good ways of asking for somethign, and bad ways to do that. I think that there's a role for the XSF to help people figure out the best way.

  1589. Guus

    waqas sure, but that time has gone. XMPP isn't sexy any more

  1590. Guus

    we need to adapt and move on.

  1591. waqas

    But then it fizzled out, because there was a lack of direction, the XSF folks at the top didn't necessarily agree with the volunteers on what needed to happen.

  1592. Half-ShotX has joined

  1593. waqas

    And the XMPP community sorely lacks much project planning/management/design experience. Most efforts fizzle out because either nobody cares much, or too many care and suddenly there's a todo list of a dozen random things.

  1594. lovetox

    also a point that i noticed is, that i cant spend much time on UI, because the core codebase is so old and stuffed together over 15 years by X people

  1595. Guus

    waqas I believe that much fizzles out because it remains in the realm of 'hobby' and 'pet project' - which is _awesome_, but is very unlikely to get the attention it needs, as people need to do stuff that they can earn a living wiht.

  1596. lovetox

    so i spend most of my time refactoring stuff,

  1597. lovetox

    but i will get there eventually :)

  1598. Guus

    lovetox I suffer from the same issue with our ancient Spark client (which isn't particularly good, but which I would like to see improved)

  1599. lovetox

    what i find really nice, are the xmpp meetups that i noticed over the last year, i wasnt able to attend one but planning to go :)

  1600. Guus

    you should definitely do that!

  1601. zinid

    lovetox, nice in what sense? I mean as a social event it might be good (beer and stuff), but what is the outcome for XMPP?

  1602. lovetox

    no zinid, i meant the meetings where they code

  1603. Andrew Nenakhov

    I don't have any faith for coding at meetings

  1604. lovetox

    get together for a weekend sit down talk about stuff and help each other out implementing some feautre

  1605. lovetox

    as i said i never was, i hope they do that :D

  1606. Andrew Nenakhov

    Why would someone need to get together with someone to code?

  1607. zinid

    ah, that's not xmpp related...

  1608. lovetox

    maybe they only drink beer

  1609. Guus

    In my experience, it adds tremendous value

  1610. Andrew Nenakhov

    Drinking beer together, is very different from drinking alone at home

  1611. lovetox

    Andrew Nenakhov, because i have a family and other things to do at home

  1612. zinid

    Andrew Nenakhov, as I see it people are different in europe, we probably cannot understand that πŸ˜€

  1613. lovetox

    i cant spend 5 hours on the computer

  1614. Andrew Nenakhov


  1615. lovetox

    but if i tell my girlfriend im going to berlin over the weekend

  1616. lovetox

    i can concentrate on the task

  1617. Guus

    I think most value is actually in the social part of the meet, not the code (Which is nice, too)

  1618. zinid

    beer, that is

  1619. waqas

    Ha, if the XSF or equivalent can just fund weekend drinks and food, we'll not lack for dev resources :P

  1620. Guus

    but discussions like the one we're having here are much faster and effective when done in person

  1621. Andrew Nenakhov

    lovetox, if you tell her that and instead go to the attic and work there, you'll be able to work those hours that would otherwise be wasted on commute

  1622. Andrew Nenakhov

    Guus, faster, but equally inconsequential

  1623. Guus

    Andrew Nenakhov to how many have you been?

  1624. zinid

    Guus, nah, depends on your communication skills (including foreign language)

  1625. oli has left

  1626. Andrew Nenakhov

    Guus, I attend 5 eight hours gettogethers of xmpp developers every week

  1627. Andrew Nenakhov

    I actually pay them to show up.

  1628. Andrew Nenakhov


  1629. Guus

    I've been at two, and I've learned things that changed things for the better for me, a lot. I need not look back further than the last 24 hours, in which I've gotten an XMPP customer that I would not have gotten if I had not done the things that others at such meetings told me to do

  1630. Half-ShotX has left

  1631. Half-ShotX has joined

  1632. Guus

    that's direct XMPP-based income. I've already earned back my tickets.

  1633. zinid

    Andrew Nenakhov, like hookers πŸ˜€

  1634. Guus

    zinid communication skills are always important - but what stops you from having a russian meetup?

  1635. Guus

    that takes away the foreign language issue.

  1636. Andrew Nenakhov


  1637. Andrew Nenakhov

    The vast distances of Russia

  1638. zinid

    Guus, lmao, I'm quite antisocial and I don't like such events

  1639. Andrew Nenakhov

    Also 1500km to moscow

  1640. zinid

    Andrew Nenakhov, I'm in Moscow, there are no people outside Moscow, you know that

  1641. zinid

    only bears

  1642. Andrew Nenakhov

    You was in Krasnodar, no?

  1643. zinid

    Andrew Nenakhov, I moved

  1644. Andrew Nenakhov

    Ah, ok. Maybe we should meet next time I'm there then. See, Guus, I'm just 2000km east of Moscow

  1645. zinid

    that's almost near

  1646. Andrew Nenakhov

    So meeting people is kinda more difficult than in Germany.

  1647. zinid

    at least not Vladivostok with 9000km πŸ˜€

  1648. Andrew Nenakhov


  1649. Half-ShotX has left

  1650. Andrew Nenakhov

    Btw do you guys know the town with a most per-capita concentration of Xmpp developers?

  1651. pep.

    I've learned lots of things in sprints! Now I know how to stack vim buffers! (thanks jc!) I think that was the best thing I learned out of sprints :P (/s)

  1652. Guus

    Guys, I'm happy for you to go about it your own way. I'm only offering suggestions, and i'm trying to find solutions. If you have a better idea, by all means, share it, so that everyone can benefit.

  1653. lorddavidiii has joined

  1654. Matthew

    random question; do you guys have a code of conduct for xsf moderated rooms?

  1655. pep.

    I don't think so

  1656. Matthew


  1657. Guus

    Matthew nope

  1658. zinid

    wut? I was banned once

  1659. waqas

    First time I've even heard the phrase "xsf moderated rooms"

  1660. Guus

    also: can how do I add you as a contact via that bridge?

  1661. pep.

    zinid, no need for a code of conduct for that

  1662. pep.

    You just need moderator permissions

  1663. waqas

    The, the MUC XEP doesn't require a code of conduct for the banning feature

  1664. zinid

    pep., indeed, it's convenient

  1665. Andrew Nenakhov

    Matrix guy wants to steal our codes of conduct!

  1666. pep.

    ban them already!!

  1667. zinid


  1668. Guus

    So basically, they'll start banning zinid ? πŸ™‚

  1669. Andrew Nenakhov

    First, they came for our uses. Then, codes of conduct. That's next, our beautiful women?

  1670. zinid

    yeah, banning people is funny, muc drama

  1671. ak430770 has joined

  1672. pep.

    I'm not sure at what frequency heated discussions happen fwiw

  1673. pep.

    XHTML-IM, OMEMO, zinid, that's about the main events

  1674. Half-ShotX has joined

  1675. Guus

    as far as I've seen: once. And he got banned.

  1676. Andrew Nenakhov

    What was the Omemo drama?

  1677. lorddavidiii has left

  1678. pep.

    the _ongoing_ omemo drama

  1679. lovetox

    Its mostly Ge0rG hating it

  1680. zinid

    Ge0rG is hating everything

  1681. lovetox

    probably because he has not enough time to implement it, and his users bug him :D

  1682. pep.

    Yeah, that's usually how you get features in implementations anyway

  1683. pep.

    Having users bully other developers :P

  1684. Andrew Nenakhov

    I hate Omemo too. Protocol written like shit, with race conditions, and has zealous users who believe it to be the silver bullet

  1685. zinid

    Andrew Nenakhov, you will not such arguments for the upcoming MLS πŸ˜›

  1686. pep.

    Andrew Nenakhov, thanks, let's not redo the OMEMO discussion right now

  1687. zinid

    *will not have

  1688. Half-ShotX has left

  1689. Andrew Nenakhov

    What's MLS?

  1690. zinid

    I bet the MLS WG will produce high quality spec, they all look very *clever* πŸ˜€

  1691. labdsf has left

  1692. ak430770 has left

  1693. zinid


  1694. zinid

    namely, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mls-protocol-03

  1695. Andrew Nenakhov

    DISCLAIMER: This is a work-in-progress draft of MLS and has not yet seen significant security analysis. It should not be used as a basis for building production systems.

  1696. Andrew Nenakhov

    I wonder if there ever was a serious security analysis of OMEMO

  1697. Nekit has joined

  1698. pep.

    OMEMO itself, or signal's encryption mechanism?

  1699. blabla has left

  1700. lovetox

    there was for both

  1701. blabla has joined

  1702. Andrew Nenakhov

    Actually both

  1703. labdsf has joined

  1704. lovetox

    omemo is only about wrapping signal in xmpp

  1705. lovetox

    not much you can do wrong

  1706. Andrew Nenakhov

    It bugged me when reading that terminology is different in different documents.

  1707. Andrew Nenakhov

    Very so-so

  1708. Half-ShotX has joined

  1709. zinid

    Andrew Nenakhov, there was for OMEMO afair

  1710. novnov has joined

  1711. Guus

    I'm off. goodnight!

  1712. oli has joined

  1713. Andrew Nenakhov


  1714. Half-ShotX has left

  1715. novnov has left

  1716. novnov has joined

  1717. Half-ShotX has joined

  1718. novnov has left

  1719. moparisthebest

    Andrew Nenakhov, re security analysis of omemo https://conversations.im/omemo/audit.pdf

  1720. Andrew Nenakhov

    I saw that. I meant serious )

  1721. moparisthebest

    then you'll have to define serious :)

  1722. !xsf_Martin has left

  1723. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1724. !xsf_Martin has left

  1725. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1726. !xsf_Martin has left

  1727. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1728. !xsf_Martin has left

  1729. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1730. !xsf_Martin has left

  1731. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1732. !xsf_Martin has left

  1733. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1734. novnov has joined

  1735. !xsf_Martin has left

  1736. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1737. Andrew Nenakhov

    Those that have their most interesting part being just a link to some other research done of course but a very respectable experts, ha

  1738. novnov has left

  1739. Lance has joined

  1740. novnov has joined

  1741. moparisthebest

    I mean the signal protocol has been pretty extensively reviewed hasn't it? what else can an implementation of it get than a 3rd party audit?

  1742. novnov has left

  1743. Lance has left

  1744. blabla has left

  1745. Andrew Nenakhov

    moparisthebest, was signals protocol really reviewed? Or, it's so popular itmust have been reviewed?

  1746. lovetox

    Andrew Nenakhov, it is reviewed you can find this out pretty fast

  1747. Andrew Nenakhov

    Anyway I'm not really in the mood arguing about that

  1748. Half-ShotX has left

  1749. Half-ShotX has joined

  1750. lovetox

    there is nothing to argue about

  1751. lovetox


  1752. moparisthebest

    well I ddg'd "signal protocol review" and found a ton of results so, probably?

  1753. moparisthebest

    > In October 2016, researchers from the UK's University of Oxford, Australia's Queensland University of Technology, and Canada's McMaster University published a formal analysis of the protocol.[15][16] They concluded that the protocol was cryptographically sound.[15][16]

  1754. moparisthebest

    knock yourself out following all the citations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Protocol

  1755. moparisthebest

    like lovetox said, nothing to argue about, 100% has been widely reviewed

  1756. novnov has joined

  1757. lorddavidiii has joined

  1758. Half-ShotX has left

  1759. andrey.g has left

  1760. Nekit has left

  1761. lorddavidiii has left

  1762. Half-ShotX has joined

  1763. andrey.g has joined

  1764. novnov has left

  1765. lorddavidiii has joined

  1766. kokonoe has left

  1767. Half-ShotX has left

  1768. Half-ShotX has joined

  1769. kokonoe has joined

  1770. !xsf_Martin has left

  1771. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1772. !xsf_Martin has left

  1773. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1774. wurstsalat has left

  1775. !xsf_Martin has left

  1776. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1777. rtq3 has left

  1778. rtq3 has joined

  1779. Half-ShotX has left

  1780. Half-ShotX has joined

  1781. Half-ShotX has left

  1782. ak430770 has joined

  1783. !xsf_Martin has left

  1784. ak430770 has left

  1785. Half-ShotX has joined

  1786. Half-ShotX has left

  1787. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1788. !xsf_Martin has left

  1789. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1790. Half-ShotX has joined

  1791. Ge0rG

    lovetox [22:02]: > probably because he has not enough time to implement it, and his users bug him :D Is this a troll or a massive misinformation?

  1792. lovetox

    it was a joke, dont take it to serious

  1793. Ge0rG


  1794. Half-ShotX has left

  1795. goffi has left

  1796. j.r has left

  1797. j.r has joined

  1798. Half-ShotX has joined

  1799. labdsf has left

  1800. labdsf has joined

  1801. moparisthebest has left

  1802. UsL has left

  1803. UsL has joined

  1804. moparisthebest has joined

  1805. Half-ShotX has left

  1806. !xsf_Martin has left

  1807. !xsf_Martin has joined

  1808. Half-ShotX has joined

  1809. l has joined

  1810. Kev has joined

  1811. Kev has left

  1812. vaulor has left

  1813. vaulor has joined

  1814. l has left

  1815. Half-ShotX has left

  1816. Half-ShotX has joined

  1817. moparisthebest has left

  1818. moparisthebest has joined

  1819. Half-ShotX has left

  1820. Half-ShotX has joined

  1821. !xsf_Martin has left

  1822. Half-ShotX has left

  1823. moparisthebest has left

  1824. moparisthebest has joined

  1825. l has joined

  1826. Half-ShotX has joined

  1827. kokonoe has left

  1828. kokonoe has joined

  1829. Half-ShotX has left

  1830. Half-ShotX has joined

  1831. moparisthebest has left

  1832. waqas has left

  1833. Half-ShotX has left

  1834. moparisthebest has joined

  1835. Half-ShotX has joined

  1836. oli has left

  1837. Half-ShotX has left

  1838. labdsf has left

  1839. labdsf has joined

  1840. wurstsalat has joined

  1841. Half-ShotX has joined

  1842. rtq3 has left

  1843. Half-ShotX has left

  1844. lorddavidiii has left

  1845. Half-ShotX has joined

  1846. lovetox has left

  1847. j.r has left

  1848. j.r has joined

  1849. Matthew has left

  1850. undefined has joined

  1851. Half-ShotX has left