XSF Discussion - 2020-08-24

  1. Guus

    On OpenDomain: https://web.archive.org/web/20070504093558/https://xmpp.org/xsf/press/2005-12-30.shtml

  2. Holger

    Guus: Ah, thanks.

  3. Guus

    The XSF is incorporated the state of Delaware - I assume that the Denver PO box is more of a convenience / physical distance thingy.

  4. Zash

    > domains were transferred to the JSF Meaning they are held by the XSF?

  5. jonas’


  6. jonas’

    Registrant Organization: XMPP Standards Foundation Registrant State/Province: CO Registrant Country: US

  7. Zash

    Registrant Organization: REDACTED FOR PRIVACY 😕️

  8. jonas’


  9. jonas’

    I just ran `whois xmpp.org` and got that

  10. Zash

    Ah, that was from `whois xmpp.com`

  11. Holger

    Guus: Ah. Looks like you get good burgers right next to the Denver address though.

  12. Guus

    Holger I can't vouch for that. I'm not sure to what extend, if true, that is a coincidence. /me eyes stpeter

  13. Guus

    just to assert the amount of attention that I need to give the addressing thing: is this merely to satisfy curiosity, or are we having an issue somehow/somewhere?

  14. Guus

    just to assert the amount of attention that I need to give the address thing: is this merely to satisfy curiosity, or are we having an issue somehow/somewhere?

  15. Holger

    Guus: :-) Pure curiousity, sorry for the noise. I've applied for membership so I'm trying to inform myself about the important things such as burgers.

  16. jonas’


  17. Guus

    can't blame you.

  18. eevvoor

    Ah, you`re applying at last, Holger?

  19. edhelas

    just posted that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24258436

  20. eevvoor

    edhelas‎ 🙂

  21. Ge0rG

    if you want to upvote, you should go through https://news.ycombinator.com/newest and not through the direct id link

  22. edhelas

    ah, indeed, sorry

  23. lovetox

    The example message example makes no sense

  24. lovetox


  25. lovetox

    It implies implementation should implement there own way of saying "Yes" or "No" via body

  26. lovetox

    at the same time the XEP defines a protocol way of confirmation (type=error vs type=normal)

  27. lovetox

    for a moment i thought this might be a, Dont show the body its only a fallback thing

  28. lovetox

    but that makes even less sense, as with such XEP the body is very useful and gives more context about what the auth is

  29. lovetox

    further the XEP states, the confirm element MUST be in the reply, so essentially only clients that understand httpauth can do this

  30. Zash

    In https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0425.html why is <retract/> a child of <moderate/>? (ping jcbrand) Not sure if I asked before, but I've wondered about it before. Seems backwards or redundant, unless there may be other future moderation actions than retraction.

  31. jcbrand

    Zash: because conceivably there could be other moderation commands as well besides retraction

  32. Zash

    I'm thinking because it means you have to support both

  33. Zash

    Might be fine tho

  34. lovetox


  35. lovetox

    i just go a message from someone who claims to be from the FBI and requests access logs from gajim.org

  36. lovetox

    anyone experienced something similar?

  37. Zash

    I guess it depends on how different you consider "the user retracted this message" and "a moderator retracted a message"

  38. marc

    lovetox: via email?

  39. lovetox

    no via xmpp

  40. MattJ

    lovetox: yes, it happens

  41. lovetox

    and do you hand over logs?

  42. MattJ

    stpeter may have some tips, he has dealt with it for jabber.org occasionally

  43. Zash

    maybe consider lawyering up

  44. lovetox

    Zash, why would i ?! im not us citizen

  45. lovetox

    asking nicely is the full extend of what he can do, thats why he does it i guess

  46. lovetox

    hail mary

  47. MattJ


  48. Daniel

    lovetox: depending on how credible you think they are either ignore or tell them politely that they have to go through Austrian authorities

  49. Daniel

    You are probably not allowed (by your countrie's) law to hand them any data

  50. moparisthebest

    is it a @fbi.gov JID or something else? either way probably shouldn't just send data

  51. Daniel

    And the proper procedure is the proxy that through your authorities

  52. marc

    > And the proper procedure is the proxy that through your authorities ☝

  53. Zash

    Does seem like the thing where asking a lawyer seems saner than asking the Internet. :P

  54. Daniel

    Usually I would expect them to send a scanned document with a proper stamp and letter head

  55. MattJ

    Yeah, I wouldn't expect a request over XMPP

  56. moparisthebest

    I doubt any country has a law requiring any response at all to an informal instant messaging request

  57. Daniel

    Oh it came over xmpp?

  58. Daniel

    I missed that part.

  59. Daniel

    It's very likely not credible than

  60. lovetox

    actually he regitered on gajim.org

  61. lovetox

    and send me that

  62. moparisthebest

    99.9% chance he's a scammer

  63. lovetox

    but what seems to make it credible, is that he offerend i can call the phone number and verify his identity

  64. lovetox

    phone number is indeed correct

  65. moparisthebest

    how did you verify the phone number

  66. lovetox


  67. Daniel

    Credible or not the proper procedure is for them to go through the Austrian authorities

  68. Daniel

    With a request for legal assistance

  69. lovetox

    Yes Daniel i agree

  70. Daniel

    But I almost always get a nice PDF

  71. Daniel

    Not that this buys me anything

  72. Daniel

    Because it doesn't change the procedure

  73. lovetox

    yeah asking does not hurt and i bet some people send data