XSF Discussion - 2019-06-20

  1. karoshi has left
  2. neshtaxmpp moparisbest
  3. neshtaxmpp my friend server has serious access from, brute force from sshd here is log: https://bgzashtita.es/tefter/raw/VbNthqzNKV can someone help.
  4. wurstsalat has left
  5. neshtaxmpp my friend don't connect from, something illegaly connect from and brute force my friend server for my friend password. maybe it is from sslh. can you comment how to compile latest sslh and show when ip is connecting in apache2 to show real ip and stop from internet try connect my friend server.
  6. dwd has left
  7. dwd has joined
  8. dwd has left
  9. lnj has joined
  10. eevvoor has left
  11. dwd has joined
  12. lumi has joined
  13. marc_ has left
  14. mr.fister has left
  15. moparisthebest neshtaxmpp, lol is localhost, ie your friends own computer
  16. moparisthebest but also every ssh on the internet that accepts password auth is bruteforced 100% of the time, fact of life
  17. moparisthebest neshtaxmpp, set up this https://linode.com/docs/security/authentication/use-public-key-authentication-with-ssh/
  18. mr.fister has joined
  19. dwd has left
  20. dwd has joined
  21. lumi has left
  22. dwd has left
  23. dwd has joined
  24. lnj has left
  25. pdurbin has joined
  26. neshtaxmpp moparisthebest: my friend server dont connect to him from something from my friend server is using sshd to someone connecr from do you know how to investigate what make here is log: https://bgzashtita.es/tefter/VbNthqzNKV
  27. neshtaxmpp here is other logs: https://bgzashtita.es/tefter/
  28. moparisthebest neshtaxmpp: and did you follow the link
  29. moparisthebest IP doesn't matter ignore it
  30. neshtaxmpp my friend dont want use with certificate. my friend want to use with password. he is ok if they try with they real ip. but he is not ok " he dont like " to be used from sshd. moparisthebest you comment " is his own server " so this is serious issue. do you know how can help my friend investigate and block becouse you confirm is his server. thanks
  31. moparisthebest Well then your friend is an idiot
  32. moparisthebest Hope he has a good password set up
  33. moparisthebest Read sslh docs if you want transparent forwarding with real IP
  34. pdurbin has left
  35. neshtaxmpp moparisthebest: do you have manuals that can work for debian... like compilong, what is necessary, what permission after compile, what directory, what plugins and etc. so it after make install work. ivan dont speak english so i translate him.
  36. moparisthebest Nope just sslh docs
  37. neshtaxmpp moparisthebest: some comands to investigate why and how is connecting, when this is for home access. official nobody outside my friend server can't connect from, then how is that possible.
  38. moparisthebest How many ways can I repeat myself
  39. moparisthebest Sslh docs
  40. moparisthebest Transparent forwarding
  41. moparisthebest Read docs from sslh
  42. moparisthebest Sslh documentation, have a look
  43. neshtaxmpp moparisthebest: How many ways can I repeat myself I dont understand them so i cant explain to him..
  44. moparisthebest Then I guess you are shit outta luck my friend
  45. lskdjf has left
  46. Yagiza has joined
  47. mimi89999 has left
  48. dwd has left
  49. dwd has joined
  50. dwd has left
  51. Yagiza has left
  52. mimi89999 has joined
  53. pdurbin has joined
  54. pdurbin has left
  55. lumi has joined
  56. lumi has left
  57. dwd has joined
  58. Nekit has joined
  59. dwd has left
  60. dwd has joined
  61. dwd has left
  62. Douglas Terabyte has left
  63. Douglas Terabyte has joined
  64. dwd has joined
  65. jonas’ moparisthebest, don’t you have an IRC->XMPP gateway running?
  66. kokonoe has left
  67. kokonoe has joined
  68. Douglas Terabyte has left
  69. pdurbin has joined
  70. Kacper has joined
  71. rion has left
  72. rion has joined
  73. rion has left
  74. rion has joined
  75. goffi has joined
  76. valo has left
  77. pdurbin has left
  78. marc_ has joined
  79. COM8 has joined
  80. COM8 has left
  81. valo has joined
  82. Tobias has left
  83. Tobias has joined
  84. dwd has left
  85. dwd has joined
  86. sezuan has joined
  87. dwd has left
  88. valo has left
  89. valo has joined
  90. wurstsalat has joined
  91. sezuan has left
  92. sezuan has joined
  93. intosi has left
  94. intosi has joined
  95. intosi has left
  96. intosi has joined
  97. karoshi has joined
  98. dwd has joined
  99. edhelas what are the requirements to be part of the organization on Github ? https://github.com/orgs/xsf/people
  100. jonas’ edhelas, asking nicely, probably
  101. alameyo has left
  102. alameyo has joined
  103. edhelas would it be possible to be added to be member of the XSF organisation on Github :3 ?
  104. COM8 has joined
  105. COM8 has left
  106. pdurbin has joined
  107. COM8 has joined
  108. Kacper has left
  109. Kacper has joined
  110. valo has left
  111. valo has joined
  112. COM8 has left
  113. Ge0rG edhelas: it would probably help to commit to some task, so that nobody gets an impression that you are doing it for the sake of having an organization badge on your profile.
  114. Ge0rG I'm sure the Editor team always needs a helping hand
  115. debacle has joined
  116. lnj has joined
  117. Tobias has left
  118. Tobias has joined
  119. pdurbin has left
  120. Steve Kille has left
  121. Kev has left
  122. Steve Kille has joined
  123. Steve Kille has left
  124. Steve Kille has joined
  125. Kev has joined
  126. Steve Kille has left
  127. Steve Kille has joined
  128. Kev has left
  129. Kev has joined
  130. edhelas I could have a look at the tasks yeah :)
  131. valo has left
  132. valo has joined
  133. Daniel has left
  134. Daniel has joined
  135. Tobias has left
  136. Tobias has joined
  137. dwd has left
  138. dwd has joined
  139. eevvoor has joined
  140. rtq3 has joined
  141. dwd has left
  142. goffi has left
  143. goffi has joined
  144. Daniel has left
  145. Daniel has joined
  146. dwd has joined
  147. karoshi has left
  148. karoshi has joined
  149. sezuan has left
  150. Kacper has left
  151. dwd has left
  152. dwd has joined
  153. Kacper has joined
  154. Syndace has left
  155. dwd has left
  156. Syndace has joined
  157. sezuan has joined
  158. dwd has joined
  159. rtq3 has left
  160. Kacper has left
  161. rtq3 has joined
  162. Daniel has left
  163. Daniel has joined
  164. dwd has left
  165. dwd has joined
  166. pdurbin has joined
  167. dwd has left
  168. Kacper has joined
  169. Syndace has left
  170. wurstsalat has left
  171. Syndace has joined
  172. dwd has joined
  173. dwd has left
  174. dwd has joined
  175. wurstsalat has joined
  176. dwd has left
  177. Syndace has left
  178. dwd has joined
  179. Syndace has joined
  180. andy has joined
  181. Syndace has left
  182. Syndace has joined
  183. Tobias has left
  184. Tobias has joined
  185. dwd has left
  186. dwd has joined
  187. lskdjf has joined
  188. dwd has left
  189. DebXWoody has left
  190. DebXWoody has joined
  191. dwd has joined
  192. winfried has left
  193. winfried has joined
  194. dwd has left
  195. dwd has joined
  196. kokonoe has left
  197. kokonoe has joined
  198. pep. vanitasvitae, I'm not sure I understand the discussion with disco for SCE?
  199. pep. Why would you need that. You'll have <eme/> with a namespace, and that namespace will tell you what encryption mechanism, and the encryption mechanism will be a profile of SCE, no?
  200. dwd has left
  201. lskdjf has left
  202. pep. let's try to formulate that in the email
  203. lskdjf has joined
  204. jonas’ yes, the editor team could use helping hands
  205. lovetox pep., its not about detection if you receive a message
  206. lovetox its about sending a message
  207. lovetox you cant know if the recipient supports full stanza encryption or not
  208. pep. I think that's not the right question
  209. dwd has joined
  210. pep. You can know if somebody supports $encryptionMechanism, because they will be a dicovery mechanism for it most likely, just as OX and OMEMO have their key published
  211. lovetox there is none
  212. lovetox thats what the discussion is about
  213. pep. And all you care about is if somebody supports $encryptionMechanism, that will use SCE. You don't need to know about SCE itself
  214. pep. lovetox, well there is none because nobody is using SCE atm
  215. lovetox yeah and the email is about how one can discover if a client can use SCE or OMEMO V2 or whatever
  216. pep. I wouldn't use SCE itself
  217. pep. what for?
  218. pep. You only need to know if somebody supports OMEMO2, that uses SCE
  219. lovetox because you cant decrypt my message if you dont support sce
  220. pep. But that's an implementation detail knowing about SCE
  221. pep. If you support OMEMO2 you will support SCE
  222. lovetox and how do i know if someone supports omemo2?
  223. pep. Because they publish their keys?
  224. lovetox so you saying putting the info into pubsub for every device
  225. pep. urn:xmpp:omemo:0
  226. Tobias has left
  227. lovetox thats what the discussion is about
  228. Tobias has joined
  229. lovetox and its not as bad as in disco info, but still bad
  230. pep. Skimming through the thread though I really feel like it's not focusing on the right questions
  231. pep. how is that bad?
  232. pep. "Hey you want to talk to me, you know where to check for my keys. If there's nothing there, maybe I don't do $encryptionMechanism then"
  233. lovetox because there are multiple devices
  234. zach has left
  235. pep. sure, well that's already an issue with any e2ee thing
  236. lovetox you need to determine a overall state, from all devices, implement logic according to it
  237. pep. Or any feature at all
  238. lovetox and then you have to think about X cases
  239. lovetox what if one device only supports X
  240. pep. You don't want to do that because as mentioned, carbons etc.
  241. lovetox and the other only >
  242. lovetox Y
  243. pep. And then MAM..
  244. lovetox yes so its useless that there is one device publishing that it is omemo2 capable
  245. pep. You don't care if only one device supports it because there's no way of knowing
  246. lovetox you just said we CAN know with pubsub
  247. pep. Do you need to know though?
  248. lovetox so what is it now
  249. lovetox omg
  250. lovetox pep. this discussion makes me a bit tired :D
  251. pep. hmm?
  252. pep. I'm sorry it's the first time I go through this myself, I have seen it before though
  253. lovetox yeah i noticed :) just think about it from the point of a developer wants his users to have a flawless conversion to a new standard
  254. lovetox in this case there is no easy way
  255. lovetox either you make a hard cut someday
  256. lovetox or you implement lots of hacky logic that depends on multiple things, and will fail from time to time
  257. pep. I think if you want "perfect" you need to control the whole ecosystem
  258. pep. It's just not possible here
  259. lovetox yeah i would propose all clients impl read support for omemo with sce
  260. lovetox and in a year we switch to send support
  261. pep. I'm sorry I'll repeat but "omemo with sce" doesn't mean anything
  262. pep. sce is but an implemntation detail
  263. pep. "omemo:0" that will be, I guess :)
  264. lovetox or that :)
  265. dwd has left
  266. dwd has joined
  267. pep. (to clarify a bit, "384 with sce" doesn't mean anything*, is what I wanted to say)
  268. dwd has left
  269. dwd has joined
  270. COM8 has joined
  271. COM8 has left
  272. lumi has joined
  273. vanitasvitae pep.: the main point is, that xmpp has a lot of features. A client implementing sce would need to be able to properly handle all the features it supports additionally in an encrypted context.
  274. pep. What I'm saying is, a client won't implement sce by itself
  275. vanitasvitae Therefore it may be desirable to negotiate features like "i understand sce, but only for body, chat state and feature xyz"
  276. pep. hmm?
  277. pep. oh, wow
  278. pep. I wasn't even thinking about that, but now I'm confused
  279. vanitasvitae If you receive a message with a chat state notification, you want to know if it was contained inside a sce element or not.
  280. vanitasvitae (If it was encrypted or not)
  281. pep. "you want to know"?
  282. pep. You will know, by decrypting it, right?
  283. vanitasvitae Yes
  284. vanitasvitae Yeah but all your listeners need to be modified to differentiate between a protected message correction and a plain one.
  285. vanitasvitae As you probably want to communicate that to the user somehow
  286. vanitasvitae Like "watch out, this message correction was not encrypted"
  287. pep. Yeah no that was the part I didn't really understand, and even now that I have this missing piece of info, I still find this overkill
  288. pep. Sure you can do that already without discovering anything
  289. pep. There's no need for protocol support here
  290. pep. A client parsing a e2ee payload using sce will know what is and what isn't in the container
  291. pep. *an
  292. vanitasvitae That was my initial impression as well, but some people suggest it may be more complicated
  293. vanitasvitae Take smack for example. Literally all listeners in smack need to be rewritten to carry some sort of security information that tell the user how the triggering element was encrypted.
  294. pep. that's.. weird
  295. pep. Maybe the API is just not what it should be
  296. vanitasvitae For that reason it may be good to gradually start an implementation with just a subset of the features.
  297. vanitasvitae The thing is, that an sce message can contain encrypted and unencrypted elements at the same time
  298. pep. With slix I don't need all that
  299. vanitasvitae How does slix do listening for elements?
  300. pep. I mean I don't have an implementation of a container, but I see more or less how I could do it
  301. pep. "listening for elements"?
  302. vanitasvitae Hehe
  303. pep. You don't, you have a Message object and you lookup what you want to
  304. vanitasvitae Ah so slix works rather different to smack
  305. vanitasvitae in smack the user registers listeners for certain events and gets notified when a stanza for that event is received
  306. pep. There are also signals sent if your message contains X or Y, but most likely in a client you'll want to ignore these, and only use the helpers from the library
  307. vanitasvitae like for example if a chat state arrived, that will cause a listener to be fired
  308. vanitasvitae ah okay
  309. pep. Yeah you could also do that in slix, but I don't like it
  310. pep. Because then if I fire an event for "message" and an event for "eme" with the same message, now I have to have more global state in my app to know these are the same messages
  311. lumi has left
  312. vanitasvitae I see
  313. vanitasvitae So you suggest that SCE should be coupled to a new OMEMO namespace which then infers that the client knows how to handle any element inside the SCE content?
  314. Nekit has left
  315. pep. Maybe I'm missing some part of the picture, but I think SCE should be used by itself. It should be like 373/374, be used as profiles
  316. vanitasvitae I'll have to think about that 😀
  317. pep. For the encryption mechanism. What tag then goes inside is up to the sending client I guess?
  318. vanitasvitae what tag do you mean?
  319. Nekit has joined
  320. pep. payload, body, replace, etc. etc.
  321. vanitasvitae ah
  322. lumi has joined
  323. vanitasvitae ideally the sending client would put all elements inside the content, that do not concern the server.
  324. pep. sure
  325. pdurbin has left
  326. pep. The receiving client will know what's inside the encrypted payload, and can accordingly display a warning or not.
  327. vanitasvitae hm i think i like the idea of profiles.
  328. pep. There's a bit of handwaving here I agree
  329. vanitasvitae How would you signal what profiles a client supports?
  330. vanitasvitae I think the best way is to couple that information with the published keys somehow.
  331. lovetox vanitasvitae, there should only one single profile for omemp
  332. bitumani has joined
  333. lovetox really we should not get into the situation that one resource supports X and another Y
  334. pep. yeah, it'll be urn:xmpp:omemo:0, that is a profile of SCE
  335. vanitasvitae Aggreed
  336. vanitasvitae But what about ox? :P
  337. vanitasvitae OX:1?
  338. pep. sure
  339. vanitasvitae Alright
  340. vanitasvitae Sounds reasonable
  341. lovetox and yeah except for a gajim plugin there is no support in the wild for OX, so i think OX is easy to update
  342. lovetox ah and your smack impl, but i dont know if you published it
  343. rion has left
  344. bitumani has left
  345. bitumani has joined
  346. bitumani has left
  347. rion has joined
  348. dwd has left
  349. dwd has joined
  350. dwd has left
  351. Kacper has left
  352. Kacper has joined
  353. Yagiza has joined
  354. nyco t-1 min
  355. nyco ding
  356. Seve Dong
  357. nyco \o/
  358. Guus hi
  359. nyco where's the gavel?
  360. Guus eyes ralphm
  361. ralphm Sorry, I was distracted.
  362. ralphm bangs gavel
  363. Guus mentions MattJ
  364. ralphm 0. Welcome + Agenda
  365. ralphm MattJ has sent regrets.
  366. nyco :)
  367. Guus ah ok
  368. Guus nothing for the agenda for me. I neglected to read up the chat logs for the last three meetings (that I missed)
  369. ralphm For the record, there was no meeting. Instead I discussed infra with MattJ.
  370. ralphm (last week, I mean)
  371. lumi has left
  372. ralphm 1. Minute taker
  373. Guus oh, from trello, I'm missing something
  374. nyco I've missed meetings as well, sorry, and did not read minutes
  375. Guus The M-Sec project email. Was that resolved?
  376. Guus I'll do after-the-fact minutes of this meeting
  377. Seve Doesn't look like
  378. kokonoe has left
  379. dos has left
  380. kokonoe has joined
  381. ralphm 2. Compliance Badges
  382. ralphm Where are we on this?
  383. nyco we should vote
  384. nyco board-only? members?
  385. nyco board-only is fast but non-democratic members is longer, but safer meaning collective intelligence
  386. ralphm I don't think a members vote is needed.
  387. Guus ... Did I sent a call for feedback, as I promised on this?
  388. Guus (if so, it didn't get any feedback. If I neglected, shame on me)
  389. nyco it's visual design, the more people the better
  390. ralphm Guus: you did on May 23
  391. Guus I _did_ sent that request, on Thu, 23 May
  392. nyco small subset for qualitative feedback large set for quantitative
  393. ralphm I haven't seen any feedback
  394. Guus we've got no feedback. I'm unsure if asking for a vote would result in any meaningful feedback, tbh.
  395. COM8 has joined
  396. alameyo has left
  397. Guus Design shouldn't be a democratic endeavor, I think.
  398. Guus Ge0rG - did you happen to have more on this?
  399. dwd has joined
  400. nyco design process, agree design decision: the masses decide, one way or another (adoption vs rejection)
  401. jonas’ I think a poll from the members to get an impression should be done
  402. jonas’ if I may humbly say so from the floor
  403. jonas’ the members voted for the XMPP logo (IIRC?), and I think that should also happen for the CS badges
  404. Guus not a hill for me to die on.
  405. COM8 has left
  406. ralphm I am ok with a poll.
  407. ralphm But I wouldn't make a big deal on this.
  408. ralphm I.e. we could reiterate the request for feedback. If there is no response, again, we can just choose a design as Board.
  409. nyco good
  410. Guus Ge0rG suggested requesting for feedback, rather than 'picking one', to improve the existing designs (as a prelude to choosing one) iirc
  411. neshtaxmpp has left
  412. Guus but, sure. Who wants to create a poll?
  413. ralphm A good suggestion, but it seems no one so far has cared to provide any.
  414. Seve So do we choose a design already?
  415. ralphm :-) it seems so
  416. Daniel has left
  417. ralphm From what I've seen, the proposals in Guus' mail are all work in progress. I have a clear preference for the direction suggested by mray (https://opensourcedesign.net/jobs/jobs/2019-03-19-design-of-badges-for-different-xmpp-compliance-levels)
  418. Seve Me as well
  419. Guus Note that there's a good chance that we've lost his attention span
  420. Guus I have no significant preference.
  421. nyco the two others follow the de facto standard for badges formats
  422. Guus I badly want to avoid us taking the rest of this meeting discussing this though. Can we do this out-of-band?
  423. nyco yep
  424. nyco feedback request followup, then poll
  425. ralphm WFM
  426. ralphm Guus: can you send that reminder?
  427. Seve +1
  428. Guus Can someone else please?
  429. nyco I will
  430. ralphm Thanks
  431. nyco for the poll, which tool?
  432. nyco (fast answer or none, so we go to the next agenda item)
  433. ralphm not sure. maybe memberbot
  434. ralphm 3. Fabian Sauter to join SCAM
  435. Guus If google forms can include pictures, that might be handy.
  436. ralphm from an earlier meeting I remember that we'd ask him for his motivation to join, beyond just wanting to
  437. ralphm Seve?
  438. Guus I don't recall this, but it seems sensible. Did we relay that request to him?
  439. Daniel has joined
  440. Seve I had the task to reach to him
  441. ralphm ralphm: Seve can you ask him to expand on what he wants to do on SCAM? Seve: Yes, I will try to reach to him
  442. ralphm (from 6-6)
  443. rion has left
  444. rion has joined
  445. Seve I didn't send him an email unfortunately, I will do that right after the meeting, my bad.
  446. ralphm I moved the item to the left
  447. ralphm 4. Roadmap page
  448. ralphm Also discussed on the 6-6 meeting
  449. Nekit has left
  450. Nekit has joined
  451. ralphm I'll send an e-mail to ask Council what they'd want to do with this.
  452. jonas’ 6-6 meeting?
  453. Guus Although I'd be happy for Council's feedback, i feel that this is a Board thingy
  454. ralphm 2019-06-06, as a date
  455. ralphm Guus: given that Council is the body regarding our core business, standards development, and the current page lists mostly items concerning those, I think it more than just a Board thingy.
  456. Seve We can decide on XSF topics, but I wonder if we can put ourselves some roadmap for XEPs
  457. ralphm Seve: and that, too
  458. Seve So I guess it depends on what kind of roadmap are we talking about
  459. nyco not a XEP-only roadmap please
  460. ralphm A goal could be, for example, to get more of our specification to move forward in the process, with a focus on certain (groups of) XEPs.
  461. ralphm The original topic is whether we want to link to the Roadmap page, and the question then became two-fold: 1) do we still want a formal roadmap, 2) what should be on it, if so.
  462. Guus The XMPP Council is the technical steering group that approves XMPP Extension Protocols. It can have it's own goals, but the XSF roadmap should, in my opinion, be driven by Board - with backing from the community / membership, of which Council is an important part.
  463. Guus I think we should want one, but I fear we currently lack momentum to follow through on it.
  464. Guus As long as it takes us months to decide on something simple as a badge design, I fear that formalizing a roadmap is a bridge to far.
  465. ralphm The point I tried to make, and I think Seve, too, is that we don't, as an organization, *create* standards. We take proposals from the community, and then foster their standardization, weighing them against other similar proposals, and the existing set of specifications.
  466. nyco 1/ yes, absolutely, we want, they want a roadmap, gives a general idea on our direction, no need to be precise though 2/ we should put non-tech-only content, but also maybe community, business, communication, whatever, I d'ont know yet, knowing that tech is our main thing
  467. Guus I'm pressed for time, and this meeting is running over.
  468. nyco me too, sorry
  469. ralphm Ok, Let's pick this one up next week. Please all think about what, if anything, *concretely* could be on here, but I'm with Guus that I'm not optimistic about us getting anywhere with it.
  470. nyco anyway, our currently online roadmap is outdated, I suggest to start from here and revise it
  471. Seve We may want to put it offline in the meantime, while a decision is being made.
  472. Guus we should prevent this turning into the 'setting priorities' thingy from last year.
  473. ralphm 5. AOB
  474. Guus Vacation is upon us
  475. jonas’ what is a 6-6 meeting?
  476. ralphm jonas’: it is date!
  477. ralphm a date
  478. Seve Haha
  479. ralphm on the calendar
  480. jonas’ in the past
  481. Guus do we need to account for absence?
  482. ralphm jonas’: yes, a reference to what was discussed before
  483. jonas’ I see
  484. jonas’ nevermind me then
  485. ralphm I'm here next week
  486. ralphm But this is AOB
  487. jonas’ (I somehow thought it was board+council, but that doesn’t make sense now because we’re just 5 people each)
  488. Guus I ment it as AOB 🙂
  489. ralphm oh, well, generally we just keep the calendar going. If we don't have quorum, no meeting.
  490. Guus ok
  491. ralphm 6. Date of Next
  492. ralphm +1W
  493. nyco ok
  494. ralphm 7. Close
  495. ralphm Thanks all!
  496. ralphm bangs gavel
  497. nyco thx all
  498. Seve Thank you guys :)
  499. Guus Thanks
  500. Nekit has left
  501. Nekit has joined
  502. moparisthebest I don't currently run it jonas’ but https://github.com/moparisthebest/xmpp-ircd
  503. moparisthebest it "works", no authentication (like nickserv) is the reason I currently don't run it
  504. moparisthebest but also before I touched it again I'd rewrite in Rust, so, have at it :)
  505. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  506. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  507. Daniel has left
  508. pdurbin has joined
  509. Daniel has joined
  510. pdurbin has left
  511. lnj has left
  512. lnj has joined
  513. Daniel has left
  514. j.r has joined
  515. COM8 has joined
  516. j.r has left
  517. Daniel has joined
  518. COM8 has left
  519. COM8 has joined
  520. COM8 has left
  521. COM8 has joined
  522. COM8 has left
  523. COM8 has joined
  524. COM8 has left
  525. j.r has joined
  526. COM8 has joined
  527. COM8 has left
  528. COM8 has joined
  529. COM8 has left
  530. COM8 has joined
  531. COM8 has left
  532. COM8 has joined
  533. COM8 has left
  534. COM8 has joined
  535. COM8 has left
  536. oli moparisthebest: do it (rewrite in Rust) ;)
  537. moparisthebest it's pretty far down on my list, ETA "years to never" :/
  538. j.r has left
  539. j.r has joined
  540. oli wait for MIX and ircv3 ;)
  541. pep. And add another few years to the ETA?
  542. rtq3 has left
  543. oli never + a few years = never
  544. pep. I knew it! (*does the gesture*)
  545. j.r has left
  546. j.r has joined
  547. moparisthebest yea so you could say it's got the same ETA as MIX >:)
  548. Zash Any Decade Now™
  549. COM8 has joined
  550. waqas has joined
  551. COM8 has left
  552. kokonoe has left
  553. kokonoe has joined
  554. dwd has left
  555. dwd has joined
  556. dwd has left
  557. waqas has left
  558. alameyo has joined
  559. Wojtek has joined
  560. dwd has joined
  561. Wojtek has left
  562. rtq3 has joined
  563. Lance has joined
  564. igoose has left
  565. igoose has joined
  566. goffi has left
  567. pdurbin has joined
  568. Syndace has left
  569. igoose has left
  570. igoose has joined
  571. dwd has left
  572. dwd has joined
  573. pdurbin has left
  574. dwd has left
  575. Douglas Terabyte has joined
  576. dwd has joined
  577. Nekit has left
  578. Nekit has joined
  579. Douglas Terabyte has left
  580. COM8 has joined
  581. COM8 has left
  582. COM8 has joined
  583. Kacper has left
  584. dwd has left
  585. dwd has joined
  586. Kacper has joined
  587. Douglas Terabyte has joined
  588. Kacper has left
  589. dwd has left
  590. COM8 has left
  591. COM8 has joined
  592. COM8 has left
  593. Kacper has joined
  594. COM8 has joined
  595. COM8 has left
  596. dwd has joined
  597. andy has left
  598. COM8 has joined
  599. murabito has left
  600. murabito has joined
  601. Kacper has left
  602. Douglas Terabyte has left
  603. COM8 has left
  604. COM8 has joined
  605. COM8 has left
  606. dwd has left
  607. dwd has joined
  608. Kacper has joined
  609. alameyo has left
  610. alameyo has joined
  611. Tobias has left
  612. dwd has left
  613. Lance has left
  614. Tobias has joined
  615. Lance has joined
  616. dwd has joined
  617. COM8 has joined
  618. COM8 has left
  619. oli has left
  620. andy has joined
  621. oli has joined
  622. sezuan has left
  623. goffi has joined
  624. Damien has joined
  625. sezuan has joined
  626. Damien has left
  627. sezuan has left
  628. Tobias has left
  629. Tobias has joined
  630. sezuan has joined
  631. sezuan has left
  632. sezuan has joined
  633. sezuan has left
  634. sezuan has joined
  635. murabito has left
  636. murabito has joined
  637. lumi has joined
  638. sezuan has left
  639. Nekit has left
  640. Seve Guus, thank you for the minutes
  641. Wojtek has joined
  642. Wojtek has left
  643. Damien has joined
  644. Syndace has joined
  645. Guus Np
  646. Zash Hm, when unblocking a JID per XEP-0191 it says you should send the JID your current presence (assuming they're allowed to see it)
  647. Zash However it doesn't say anything about the previously blocked JIDs presence
  648. Zash Is it implied that you probably wanna re-probe or somesuch?
  649. Damien has left
  650. Damien has joined
  651. j.r has left
  652. dwd has left
  653. dwd has joined
  654. dwd has left
  655. Damien has left
  656. j.r has joined
  657. dwd has joined
  658. sezuan has joined
  659. sezuan has left
  660. sezuan has joined
  661. sezuan has left
  662. sezuan has joined
  663. goffi has left
  664. Damien has joined
  665. McKael has joined
  666. McKael has left
  667. debacle has left
  668. Damien has left
  669. Damien has joined
  670. kokonoe has left
  671. dwd has left
  672. dwd has joined
  673. kokonoe has joined
  674. dwd has left
  675. Yagiza has left
  676. sezuan has left
  677. sezuan has joined
  678. pdurbin has joined
  679. sezuan has left
  680. sezuan has joined
  681. sezuan has left
  682. debacle has joined
  683. Douglas Terabyte has joined
  684. rtq3 has left
  685. rtq3 has joined
  686. pdurbin has left
  687. Kacper has left
  688. Kacper has joined
  689. Daniel has left
  690. pdurbin has joined
  691. Kacper has left
  692. Kacper has joined
  693. Kacper has left
  694. dwd has joined
  695. Kacper has joined
  696. 404.city has joined
  697. 404.city has left
  698. Nekit has joined
  699. pdurbin has left
  700. lnj has left
  701. pdurbin has joined
  702. Nekit has left
  703. pdurbin has left
  704. igoose has left
  705. igoose has joined
  706. rtq3 has left
  707. rtq3 has joined
  708. rtq3 has left
  709. rtq3 has joined
  710. murabito has left
  711. murabito has joined
  712. kokonoe has left
  713. kokonoe has joined
  714. Lance has left
  715. Douglas Terabyte has left
  716. frainz has left
  717. frainz has joined
  718. Damien has left
  719. Douglas Terabyte has joined
  720. debacle has left
  721. david has left
  722. david has joined
  723. neshtaxmpp has joined
  724. david has left
  725. david has joined
  726. andy has left
  727. Daniel has joined
  728. wurstsalat has left
  729. lovetox has left
  730. pdurbin has joined
  731. neshtaxmpp has left
  732. pdurbin has left
  733. rtq3 has left
  734. winfried has left