pep.: As you know xmpp is incapable of providing group chat
moparisthebest
I simply can't explain how I'm sending this message to you, rocket.chat I guess
mukt2has left
lovetoxhas left
mukt2has joined
stpeterhas joined
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
!XSF_Martin
> We went through great lengths to find the one xmpp protocol tool that doesn't implemt muc
Like someone said in the other room: sendxmpp 😁
strypeyhas left
strypeyhas joined
stpeterhas left
Mikaelahas joined
Sevehas left
Sevehas joined
Vaulorhas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
mukt2has left
mukt2has joined
alexishas left
wurstsalathas joined
Marandahas left
Marandahas joined
alexishas joined
Shellhas joined
neshtaxmpphas joined
karoshihas joined
waqashas left
Jeybehas left
marchas joined
maineshas left
maineshas joined
mukt2has left
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
mukt2has joined
lorddavidiiihas left
neshtaxmpphas left
archas left
archas joined
archas left
archas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
archas left
archas joined
mukt2has left
lorddavidiiihas joined
mukt2has joined
stpeterhas joined
neshtaxmpphas joined
neshtaxmpphas left
adiaholic_has joined
stpeterhas left
karoshihas left
amuza@riseup.nethas left
xeckshas joined
karoshihas joined
karoshihas left
karoshihas joined
krauqhas left
amuza@riseup.nethas joined
Jeybehas joined
archas left
archas joined
emushas left
debaclehas joined
emushas joined
Andrzejhas joined
adiaholic_has left
adiaholic_has joined
mukt2has left
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
krauqhas joined
mukt2has joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
serge90has joined
lskdjfhas joined
mukt2has left
edhelas
is it possible that they started their investigation before 2002 🤔
!XSF_Martin
Didn't they say 'in 2016'
!XSF_Martin
But afair even GAIM supported groupchat back in 2003 when I started using XMPP.
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
stpeterhas joined
Steve Killehas left
Steve Killehas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
stpeterhas left
mimi89999has left
archas left
archas joined
debaclehas left
mimi89999has joined
Half-Shothas left
uhoreghas left
Bifrost Bothas left
Half-Shothas joined
uhoreghas joined
Bifrost Bothas joined
Ge0rG
Apple is doing increasingly more crazy things... https://thomask.sdf.org/blog/2020/07/01/local-area-network-push-notifications.html
andrey.ghas joined
jonas’
I was expecting apple devices proxying for one another and doing fancy multicast. Disappointed.
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
strypeyhas left
Shellhas left
archas left
archas joined
debaclehas joined
Guus
I suggest we do not dwell to much on that rocket chat comment. There's nothing for us to gain there. Lets focus on our strengths instead of someone else badly informed decisions. 🙂
mukt2has joined
Shellhas joined
neshtaxmpphas joined
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
mukt2has left
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
adiaholic_has left
adiaholic_has joined
stpeterhas joined
Andrzejhas left
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
alameyohas left
alameyohas joined
stpeterhas left
archas left
archas joined
robertooohas left
robertooohas joined
karoshihas left
karoshihas joined
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
Guus
Does anyone happen to know if Encrochat uses/used XMPP?
adiaholic_has left
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
lobodelrayohas left
lobodelrayohas joined
Vaulor
Seems they are talking about it in conversation's room Guus maybe they know something about it
neshtaxmpphas left
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
maineshas left
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
MattJ
Guus, I've found no evidence it is. Some similar services rebranded FOSS clients, theirs seems custom. They also have additional features, and their E2EE claims don't match the properties of any of the E2EE options on XMPP
MattJ
So no hard evidence either way that I've seen, but I would lean towards something custom
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
Guus
Interesting
Guus
Maybe the criminals wanted group chat?
MattJ
:)
Guusducks, runs
Seve
Haha
robertooohas left
robertooohas joined
maineshas joined
stpeterhas joined
adiaholic_has joined
neshtaxmpphas joined
amuza@riseup.nethas left
stpeterhas left
neshtaxmpphas left
Shellhas left
Shellhas joined
Andrzejhas joined
Wojtekhas joined
amuza@riseup.nethas joined
emushas left
emushas joined
goffihas joined
Guus
Board meeting time
pep.
!
Sevesays hi from mobile
Guus
ralphm , MattJ ?
Guus
This does not bode well...
pep.
I don't remember many things in the agenda anyway
Seve
I'm fine skipping if you guys would like that.
pep.
I had added the item re the article on interoperability, but I removed it when I realized the date. I'm happy to discuss it if you're up for it, but judging by the number of answers on members@ it doesn't seem like many care
Guus
I don't have anything pressing myself
pep.
Then let's skip
Danielhas left
Guus
ok
Sevenods
Seve
Alright
Half-Shothas left
uhoreghas left
Bifrost Bothas left
Half-Shothas joined
uhoreghas joined
Bifrost Bothas joined
emushas left
Guus
I'm leaning towards a 'lets not do that' on that interop text signature thingy, fwiw. Apart from arguments expressed by many others, I also have issues with the wording of that specific text. I find it to be aggressive, to the point of being almost offensive, which - even if other arguments wouldn't prevent me from wanting to sign - would make me wonder how signing that text reflects on others.
pep.
Can I ask where is the fact that the XSF acts as "neutral" on the website? git grep doesn't give many interesting results. I don't actually see an official stance for this
Guus
I don't know.
emushas joined
stpeterhas joined
emus
Guus: I think the even more common point was to make a statement in general. just not to be passive on topic that concern us actually. So the signature attempt was an example.✎
pep.
I don't really see the aggressive language fwiw. I only see people fed up with platforms lock-in and the economy that encourages this. It's not like there was no proof of all of what they say in there
emus
Guus: I think the even more common point was to make a statement in general. just not to be passive on topics that concern us actually. So the signature attempt was an example. ✏
Zash
Write a statement / comment about it, but don't actually sign?
Danielhas joined
mukt2has joined
moparisthebesthas left
pep.
I guess I'll add an item for next week regarding the mission statement that conflicts with the culture of so-called neutrality around here
moparisthebesthas joined
Guus
Let's work towards a resolution that puts this to bed, one way or the other. I've got the feeling that we're running in circles on issues like these.
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
mukt2has left
andrey.ghas left
Marandahas left
maineshas left
emus
Guus: but shouldnt the mission always be an kinda open point? at least question if it is heading the right way on a regular basis?
Tobiashas left
pep.
I also think so. Having the mission being reviewed every so often is kind of essential, even if it's just to say "still looks good"
jonas’
pep., do you have the link to the open letter at hand?
jonas’
my mua is still taking minutes to do things… I need to update Qt.
I don't mind reviewing these periodically - but the current frequency seems high.
pep.
current?
pep.
When was the last time
Marandahas joined
pep.
hmm I may vaguely remember a poll, 3 terms ago? 2? I don't exactly remember the content. Also I don't remember the discussion around it if there were any
pep.
And apparently that wasn't enough to make it up to the website
krauqhas left
APachhas left
jubalhhas joined
jubalh
hi
jubalh
will a XEP-0249 stanza always have type=groupchat? It's not mentioned in the XEP is it?
jonas’
it never will
APachhas joined
jonas’
from the XEP examples, you should expect type='normal' (equivalent to absent @type)
mukt2has joined
jubalh
Hmm I see
jubalh
And something with a namespace of http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user will have which type?
jubalh
seems normal too?
maineshas joined
krauqhas joined
stpeterhas left
jonas’
huh?
jonas’
"something with a namespace of"?
jubalh
If I understood correctly that ns is used on several occasions. For MUC presence, and for MUC invites. correct? And both cases it has type normal?
jubalh
and for MUC PMs too I tihnk
jonas’
the namespace has no type
jonas’
I don’t understand what you’re asking
jonas’
namespaces in general have no type
jubalh
lets try another way :) so in https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html example 135 is a message, in which I have a stanza which has that NS, the type of the message is "normal" since its not explicitly written?
Holger
I guess the question is which stanza types can be expected for stanzas with childs in that namespace. (But presence stanzas have no type=`normal`.)
jubalh
yeah thats my question :)
Holger
jubalh: Yes.
jubalh
ok
Holger
jubalh: But generally you can't conclude that you'll never receive a message of different type from looking at such examples. Esp. with `chat` vs. `normal`.
jonas’
jubalh, terminology!
A message is a stanza. A message does not contain stanzas, it may contain XML elements (and in case of <forwarded/>, it may contain nested stanzas, but that’s a special case; there is no example in '45 where a message contains a stanza)