XSF Discussion - 2020-05-06

https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/707/files so we just got this request to add https://mailfence.com to clients.json.

Is there any rule against adding a proprietary service to the list

I mostly see free software clients in there

AstraChat is proprietary too

Quid of adding a row about licenses, and maybe another one about price

I think the requirement should be that it works with any RFC 6120 server

otherwise it is more of a case for https://xmpp.org/uses/

I'm with jonas’ here

I don't disagree, but on what grounds

that page doesn't mention "jabber" or "xmpp", and I don't see where you could download an xmpp client tthere

https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/355 relevant

(it's definitely an XMPP service and not a client, since they recommend clients to connect)

if it’s not a client, it’s not fit for clients.json, simple as that

I'll reply that

if it’s a service, it’s better suited for uses.html

and we don't have a list of hosted services, do we?

no we don’t

we used to have one, but then it was replaced by a list of server lists. ✏

Ah wait,

https://kb.mailfence.com/kb/could-you-please-suggest-any-local-client-for-xmpp-connection-for-mailfence-group-chat/

So I guess they do have a web client

https://xmpp.org/software/clients.html the following could actually be confusing: > See something missing? Any list of XMPP servers, clients or libraries will, due to the dynamic and evolving nature of the XMPP market, be out of date almost as soon as it’s published. If you spot mistakes, errors or omissions in the table below, please submit a pull request!

"XMPP market", lol

Confusing as in, random users updating that list

https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/708 somebody to review this?

looks simple enough

Zash, yeah, just not to be accused of merging without review :p

Thanks jonas’

Is the docker thing back again btw? Are containers updated automatically now?

no

but I’ll do it for you if you ping me

okay

I can't login on the docker hub thing anymore for reasons

Well I can but I get a blank page

just docker hub things

yeah..

- LC for XEP-0280 expired without feedback. I think there was a lot of (unaddressed) LC feedback to xep280, just not for this LC. I am not sure if LC'ing xep280 again and again is what is required to move this XEP…

(context: council@)

Has anyone by any chance written down a summary of that feedback?

of course not, at least I am not aware of any. if only we had a way to tag mails on standards@ to make the information there easier accessible

I read "if only we had a way to nag standards@" :D

Zash: that's what I do all the time!

How long do any of you suppose it will take before XEP-0384 moves on to draft status?

somewhere between a year and never probably, why does the status matter?

I was just asking because I've been in mucs trying to use it

And a lot of people on Gajim or Profanity have tons of problems with it

Like silently dropping messages

To use omemo:1? Does anybody actually implement this?

Ah the previous one

And some people requesting that I allow them subscription access despite me not knowing them just so they can kick their client into having omemo work

tom__, well it's recently been updated, so maybe watch out for this

Which I refuse to do because I don't want to share things like presence data and geocords with everyone

» [13:48:25] <pep.> To use omemo:1? Does anybody actually implement this? » I have never seen an implementation of that

tom__, without presence subscription it will always work not optimal and you will have problems

this has nothing to do with the state of the XEP

solution is, dont use omemo with contacts not in your roster

Don't clients make the OMEMO key stuff public these days, when their server supports that?

That was a major driver for deployment of such server capabilities, since it makes OMEMO in groupchats with non-contacts easier.

How can i ensure my server has deployed those server capabilities?

Are you talking about pubsub?

Update. Yes, PEP specifically.

Stuff described in either XEP-0222 or 0223 IIRC

So if my server already implements PEP, is there anything on my side left to do?

"PEP" in its basic version doesn't support this.

Pretty sure recent versions of Prosody and ejabberd both include more extended PEP support tho.

tom__, there are server modules who make the omemo public key node public

or server configuration options

ask in the server support rooms

But this also applies to everyone else in the group chat.

but is this not problematic in some instances?

say i connect via TOR probably because i want anonymity

lovetox, some people argue that it makes deanonymising much easier.

but then my key identifys me

Since if nick1 in room1 and nick2 in room2 share the same OMEMO keys, they’re the same person.

OMEMO in MUC only works if you know everyones JIDs, so where's the concern?

A JID is not necessarily something that identifies you

I assume that you aren's sharing OMEMO keys across accounts

but i guess there is no client which lets you use omemo keys for more than one jid

It would be useful if there was an automated test for that

So users could know if their host is to blame or a buggy client

Doesn't https://compliance.conversations.im/test/xep0384/ do precisely that?