NeustradamusCan you look and maybe comment here?
- https://www.reddit.com/r/xmpp/comments/kvbn0l/can_xmpp_be_used_as_a_replacement_technology_for/
alex-a-sotohas left
alex-a-sotohas joined
alameyohas left
intosihas joined
moparisthebesthas left
krauqhas left
krauqhas joined
moparisthebesthas joined
intosihas left
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
stefanhas left
stefanhas joined
intosihas joined
lionelexecrechas left
lionelexecrechas joined
sonnyhas left
lionelexecrechas left
lionelexecrechas joined
sonnyhas joined
lionelexecrechas left
lionelexecrechas joined
lionelexecrechas left
lionelexecrechas joined
fuanahas joined
intosihas left
fuanahas left
Tobiashas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
krauqhas left
krauqhas joined
focus121has left
focus121has joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
intosihas joined
andyhas joined
moparisthebesthas left
wladmishas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
Sevehas joined
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
intosihas left
paulhas joined
lionelexecrechas left
lionelexecrechas joined
moparisthebesthas joined
lionelexecrechas left
lionelexecrechas joined
lionelexecrechas left
lionelexecrechas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
krauqhas left
krauqhas joined
intosihas joined
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
Mikaelahas joined
wurstsalathas joined
emushas joined
fuanahas joined
lovetoxhas joined
wladmishas left
intosihas left
wladmishas joined
jcbrandhas joined
waqashas left
alameyohas joined
lovetoxhas left
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
lionelexecrechas left
lionelexecrechas joined
fuanahas left
mathijshas joined
mathijshas left
intosihas joined
moparisthebesthas left
lionelexecrechas left
lionelexecrechas joined
lionelexecrechas left
lionelexecrechas joined
intosihas left
wladmishas left
intosihas joined
wladmishas joined
lionelexecrechas left
lionelexecrechas joined
florettahas left
marchas left
moparisthebesthas joined
lionelexecrechas left
lionelexecrechas joined
purplebeetroothas joined
Adihas joined
andrey.ghas joined
lionelexecrechas left
lionelexecrechas joined
neshtaxmpphas joined
j.rhas left
j.rhas joined
moparisthebesthas left
Paganinihas joined
PaganiniHi people! How many users can a Private Group Chat support? And how many users can a Public Channel support.
I know that Telegram rooms support a maximum of 200000 users.
Ge0rGPaganini: on regular servers, rooms start to get impractical around 1000 users. It's possible to work around that on the server, to some degree
lionelexecrechas left
moparisthebesthas joined
goffihas joined
focus121has left
Paganini> Paganini: on regular servers, rooms start to get impractical around 1000 users. It's possible to work around that on the server, to some degree
Thanks for your response!
Nobody wants to create things without knowing what those things can or cannot support. Telegram is transparent about this. They explicitly say that their rooms can support a maximum of 200000 users...
As a matter of fact I'm trying to move/migrate the users of some large Telegram rooms to XMPP, so I do need to get this kind of information.
marekhas left
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
Ge0rGPaganini: there is no *technical* limit, but when you join a room, you'll receive a list of all current users, one by one. And many xmpp clients and servers will misbehave if you send 10000+ messages to a user
Paganini> Paganini: there is no *technical* limit, but when you join a room, you'll receive a list of all current users, one by one. And many xmpp clients and servers will misbehave if you send 10000+ messages to a user
I see...So what do you think the pratical limit will normally be? Just 1000 users? 5000?
PaganiniPeople are trying to leave Facebook and even Telegram for political (censorship) and security reasons (Telegram server is not opensource).
Ge0rGPaganini: you can probably change the server code to not send this long list of users; everybody will appear as offline, but then you'll be able to have many more users in a room
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
flowPaganini, the practical limit depends on the use-case and used software implementations
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
marchas joined
marekhas joined
Arnehas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
marchas left
marchas joined
LNJhas joined
neshtaxmpphas left
mathijshas joined
neshtaxmpphas joined
alameyohas left
andrey.ghas left
goffiPaganini: for public large groups, you should have a look a pubsub instead of chat (chat is really hard to follow with so many people). As far as I know there a 2 clients supporting this (Movim, and Salut à Toi/Libervia on which I'm working). There is no end-to-end encryption in this case though. Also MIX (future of chat) should fix this, but it's barely implemented at the time (have a look at Tigase software, I think they start to support it).
Paganini> Paganini: you can probably change the server code to not send this long list of users; everybody will appear as offline, but then you'll be able to have many more users in a room
Ge0rG: Thanks, it's a solution, although not without inconvenient consequences.
But for now I'm not thinking about installing my own XMPP server.
Paganini> Paganini, the practical limit depends on the use-case and used software implementations
That's why every server should made that information public.
alameyohas joined
Paganinigoffi: End-to-end encryption is required. One good think about XMPP is that we can create a public encrypted chatroom.
flowPaganini, not easy, because it depends also on the use-case
flow(and, of course, potentially also on the used hardware)
PaganiniHere on XMPP we just need to choose the option "Create private group chat"' and we'll get an encrypted chatroom.
Arneis it possible to create one with a password set?
Arneis it possible to create one with a password set? (sorry just seen it's actually on the wrong room here...)
Paganiniflow: I understand. But it will be nice if we could know in advance what is the approximate number of maximum users.
flowPaganini, typically, if you have such extreme scaling demands, then you should probably reach out to the vendor and ask for paid support
Paganiniflow: Are there payed XMPP servers?
alameyohas left
Ge0rGPaganini: end-to-end encrypted rooms will probably have a much smaller practical limit
Ge0rGI don't think anybody tested that beyond 1000 people
mathieuiPaganini, as it was already said, there is no *theoretical* limit, but there is a practical one, as XMPP chatroom users are *active* participants, currently connected, and we receive the whole list on join
mathieuimodern systems should be fine with a few thousands+ connected users, but that is not generally the standard use case (and as it was also already said, there are optimizations that can be put in place to help with that)
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
moparisthebesthas left
alameyohas joined
moparisthebesthas joined
marekhas left
alameyohas left
marekhas joined
florettahas joined
goffihas left
krauqhas left
purplebeetroothas left
krauqhas joined
purplebeetroothas joined
marekhas left
marekhas joined
deuillDo MUCs send through participants that are inactive as per CSI? That is, do servers typically treat inactivity as being offline, for the purposes of MUC interactions?
Paganini> Paganini: end-to-end encrypted rooms will probably have a much smaller practical limit
> I don't think anybody tested that beyond 1000 people
That's bad news... Very bad news...
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
Paganinimathieui: Thanks for throwing more light into the subject!
neshtaxmpphas left
florettahas left
marekhas left
mathieuiPaganini, also, having thousands of people in an end-to-end encrypted room kind of defeats the purpose, considering how easy it is to leak information when there is that many participants
marekhas joined
mathieuiIt makes sense in a centralized protocol, but using XMPP you can just roll your own server without logs or data retention instead
Paganini> Paganini, also, having thousands of people in an end-to-end encrypted room kind of defeats the purpose, considering how easy it is to leak information when there is that many participants
Good point... Perhaps the best solution is to set and run our own XMPP server, on an encrypted system...
goffihas joined
mathieuiAnd unless it’s terribly insecure, I don’t see proprietary protocols having much better perf than XMPP in big, encrypted chatrooms, to be honest, at some point you need to encrypt your message to everyone you know of
debaclehas joined
mathieuiBut I haven’t tried either with many participants so I can’t really speak from experience here
mathieui(apart from the overhead when connecting or reconnecting due to MUC, that we already talked about)
Paganini> And unless it’s terribly insecure, I don’t see proprietary protocols having much better perf than XMPP in big, encrypted chatrooms, to be honest, at some point you need to encrypt your message to everyone you know of
Hum... I see...
PaganiniIf we ignore the issue of encryption, what advantages does XMPP have over Telegram and Signal that can be presented to users in order to be able to convince them to migrate from Telegram or Signal to XMPP?
PaganiniIf we ignore the issue of encryption, what advantages does XMPP has over Telegram and Signal that can be presented to users in order to be able to convince them to migrate from Telegram or Signal to XMPP?
krauqhas left
krauqhas joined
deuillAs a user (not directly involved with XMPP development):
- Wider support for devices, especially older devices. iOS is still somewhat rough, but workable, and Telegram/Signal have long since left older iOS versions unsupported.
- Desktop clients that work independently from mobile clients, but provide equivalent or greater security guarantees.
- Control over identity and data, especially if using a custom domain (some public servers support this).
deuillBasically, it works now, I know it will continue to work, and that I won't be forced to migrate or lose my data if I need to move to a different server (or stop using chat entirely, in any case).
neshtaxmpphas joined
mathieuiPaganini, from my point of view, the advantages of XMPP in the current messaging kerfluffle are (as an XMPP user and developer for more than a decade, I am obviously not objective though):
- it’s enduring (20 years and counting of existence, it’s here to stay)
- adaptative (the protocol is always evolving to adapt, e.g. the issues with the impracticality of big rooms are being worked on)
- Federated (you don’t have to give up everything if the admin becomes rogue, as it happens in centralized systems such as telegram or signal, worst case is you find another server)
- Provides state of the art encryption for those who desire it
- Plenty of clients if you’re not satisfied with one (but of course that’s also a downside because UX may not be consistent)
goffifrom a dev point of view, it's also very hackable, meaning that you can extend it the way you want with a proper namespace system (i.e. it won't conflict with others)
mathieui(but e.g. at work I’m forced to use teams, which only has one client which provides a truly awful experience for anyone not using their electron app or chrome, that’s not the case with XMPP)
purplebeetrootSomething signal gets better:
sealed sender
How signal makes that feature in practice a bit useless: exposing phone numbers to participants of a chat (they do or? Haven't used it since long)
chronosx88has left
mathieuipurplebeetroot, so looking at sealed senders (didn’t know about it) and uh:
“To prevent spoofing, clients periodically retrieve a short-lived sender certificate from the service attesting to their identity. The certificate contains the client’s phone number, public identity key, and an expiration timestamp. Clients can include the sender certificate when a message is sent, and receiving clients can easily check its validity.”
chronosx88has joined
MattJ1. IP address A requests a sender certificate
2. IP address A sends a sealed-sender message to user B
Perfect secrecy!
neshtaxmpphas left
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
neshtaxmpphas joined
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
purplebeetroot> purplebeetroot, so looking at sealed senders (didn’t know about it) and uh:
> “The certificate contains the client’s phone number, public identity key, and an expiration timestamp.”
Yes. But afaik it is e2ee.
"...the “envelope” containing the sender certificate as well as the message ciphertext is then also encrypted using the sender and recipient identity keys:"
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
Paganinideuill: Thanks for your explanation. Unfortunately Telegram group chats have more features than XMPP group chats: the possibility of creating polls, for example.
purplebeetroot> 1. IP address A requests a sender certificate
> 2. IP address A sends a sealed-sender message to user B
> Perfect secrecy!
Thought it does the job of sealing the ID (don't know how good) of a user. In xmpp it is known that JID A writes JID B. In signal it is promoted to not know this.
You can't change IP unless using a proxy. Vpn and Tor do that.
Paganini> Paganini, from my point of view, the advantages of XMPP in the current messaging kerfluffle are:
> - Federated (you don’t have to give up everything if the admin becomes rogue, as it happens in centralized systems such as telegram or signal, worst case is you find another server)
> - Provides state of the art encryption for those who desire it
> - Plenty of clients if you’re not satisfied with one (but of course that’s also a downside because UX may not be consistent)
Thanks so much mathieui! In my opinion the advantages I quoted above are very important!
intosihas left
Paganini> from a dev point of view, it's also very hackable, meaning that you can extend it the way you want with a proper namespace system (i.e. it won't conflict with others)
goffi: That's great too, but it's not an advantage a normal user would understand 😃
Paganini> (but e.g. at work I’m forced to use teams, which only has one client which provides a truly awful experience for anyone not using their electron app or chrome, that’s not the case with XMPP)
Microsoft Teams?? Oh my God! Why don't you use Nextcloud instead?? Isn't Nextcloud technically superior to Microsoft Teams (even if we ignore issues like the proprietary code)?
ZashEnterprise? Enterprise.
x51has joined
mathieuiPaganini, I don’t make the decisions (also non-tech people get office online & sharepoint integration which important to them)
SamWhitedNextcloud doesn't scale and you can't get support for it. I haven't used teams in particular, but businesses use the big chat things and not random open source projects for good reason.
mathieuiSamWhited, tbh the microsoft suite suffers more often from (short) failures than some random self-hosted chat, but that means the blame can be placed on microsfoft and not IT
mathieuiSamWhited, tbh the microsoft suite suffers more often from (short) failures than some random self-hosted chat, but that means the blame can be placed on microsoft and not IT
PaganiniNextcloud now offers office online... Collabora office or OnlyOffice.
jonas’which are binary blobs
mathieuialso teams actually provides a viable solution for 100+ videoconferencing integrated with a lot of tools and everything
jonas’onlyoffice is anyway
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
mathieuiI don’t like it but it still works in an efficient manner
Paganini> Nextcloud doesn't scale and you can't get support for it. I haven't used teams in particular, but businesses use the big chat things and not random open source projects for good reason.
That's not the case in several countries, like Germany and Switzerland...
SamWhitedmathieui: yah, I don't know how good or bad the microsoft thing is compared to other stuff, but they have a phone number you can call which is why I'd use it over something I have to run myself if I just wanted to make my product and not have to think about it.
Paganini> also teams actually provides a viable solution for 100+ videoconferencing integrated with a lot of tools and everything
I think Nextcloud Talk can support that number of participants on a video conferencing.
SamWhited(or maybe not a phone number, you know what I mean though, point is that there is someone to fix things when they break that you don't have to pay a salary to, someone else is doing it)
Paganini> (or maybe not a phone number, you know what I mean though, point is that there is someone to fix things when they break that you don't have to pay a salary to, someone else is doing it)
Are you honestly expecting Microsoft to fix things?? 😁
SamWhited:)
Steve Killehas left
PaganiniThey didn't even manage to fix Window after more than 35 years, and they let things get to the point that now the only way to fix Window is to rewrite the code from scratch!
PaganiniThey didn't even manage to fix Windows after more than 35 years, and they let things get to the point that now the only way to fix Windows is to rewrite the code from scratch!
Steve Killehas joined
SamWhitedI assumed you were joking. By "fix" I meant, "when there's an outage, it goes away after a bit and the business doesn't have to take time away from their actual product to try and fix chat"
emusPaganini: I think you are heading offtopic
SamWhitedPoint is: random open source projects aren't practical for most people. We have to make them practical.
intosihas joined
raghavgururajanhas left
raghavgururajanhas joined
florettahas joined
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
Steve Killehas left
moparisthebesthas left
lovetoxhas joined
Andrzejhas left
moparisthebesthas joined
lovetoxhas left
deuillWith regard to features such as polls: these are generally implemented via bots and the like (at least on Slack etc.), so it's not impossible to add this functionality in where needed.
deuillThat said, I'm not sure what state general-purpose XMPP bots are these days...
ZashXMPP is eXtensible, you could write a XEP on how to do polls
mathieuideuill, not great, tbh
mathieuiZash, the quickresponse XEP is actually an easy way to do polls
Andrzejhas joined
mathieuiwithout having to define things in a very precise manner
ZashYeah
ZashReactions is another
ZashSo many options!
deuillI assume the timeline for defining and implementing an XEP is slightly longer than one for implementing a bot :)
deuillPoll bots on Slack, GChat etc. collect votes via reactions -- probably the only viable use of these I've seen!
Steve Killehas joined
Paganini> With regard to features such as polls: these are generally implemented via bots and the like (at least on Slack etc.), so it's not impossible to add this functionality in where needed.
Right, but the truth is that those functions are not implemented on XMPP, for the time being.
mathieuiPaganini, we have been using poll bots for as long XMPP has existed, approximately
SamWhitedmathieui: are you suggesting that a normal user can turn on a client and create a poll? Because there's a big obvious difference between using a service like telegram or whatever Paganini is talking about and trying to create a poll on XMPP.
PaganiniHow a regular user could create a poll here on XMPP?
mathieuiSamWhited, I haven’t used telegram at all, so I don’t know, but e.g. looking at discord, matrix, etc, they appear to also go the bot route
SamWhitedImplementation doesn't matter. Same question: if on matrix I can log in and hit create poll, are you suggesting XMPP does the same thing? The answer is "no, you can't create a poll on the public jabber network easily" right now.
LNJhas left
mathieuiSamWhited, agreed
SamWhitedI dunno if that specific feature is actually a thing we want or not, but just pretending because a bot or an XEP is out there somewhere means we have the same feature as Matrix (or whatever) is probably not helpful to Paganini trying to move his users over.
PaganiniSamWhited: That's right.
SamWhitedI keep thinking that we need some organization aside from the XSF whos job it is to do things like this. Some org to sort of act like a product manager for the public network.
LNJhas joined
SamWhitedI mean, obviously they can't force clients to comply, but just keeping a compatibility suite that's more specifically geared to the public network, lists of clients and services that support it, etc. might be nice.
mathieuiSamWhited, you mean something like modernxmpp?
SamWhitedmathieui: I dunno, maybe? I should look into that again.
MattJModernXMPP was my attempt to solve this problem
ZashPast tense? 🙁
MattJand I think it's far from irrelevant, at least as a documentation project
MattJWhen I started it I was more optimistic about it than I am today
MattJAs a documentation resource, I think it's fine, but it isn't a vehicle for change
SamWhitedThat's too bad, the idea looks nice
SamWhitedI vaguely remember this launching, and apparently I joined the chatroom at some point, but I haven't seen it in a while
MattJDocumenting stuff doesn't get people to implement it
MattJSo I consider Snikket as an implementation of Modern XMPP, and I'm hoping that will be the vehicle for change instead
Andrzejhas left
MattJIt's also way harder to secure resources and funding for a documentation project, vs. something normal people can actually use
SamWhitedI kind of wonder if it doesn't need a whole service (ie. the way Matrix does it) to make it work, but I'm not sure
MattJLessons learned from Snikket will go into Modern XMPP docs, and I encourage anyone who feels there is stuff not documented or suitable for documenting under the XSF to PR there
SamWhitedI never really understood what Snicket was and didn't realize it had any relation to Modern XMPP too, so it may be a messaging problem
MattJIt has no formal connection with Modern XMPP other than in my head and actions
SamWhited(although the Snikket website looks really good)
MattJModern XMPP was about defining a blueprint for everyone to follow, but... hard to make that blueprint a reality :)
SamWhitedOh snickket does hosting too? That will be nice
MattJSnikket has real users, real feedback, and implementation experience. Which all beats a pure documentation project.
SamWhitedyah, nice; the website sort of made me think it was just a docker container and a rebranded conversations and I didn't understand the point at first and just pointed people at it if they were struggling to run prosody and just needed a container they could run easily, but it looks like it's a lot more
jonas’especially since I hear there’ll be iOS support soon
MattJFew people understood the point, but my focus isn't the XMPP community so I didn't care too much
SamWhitedFair enough
SamWhitedwell I love the idea anyways now that I understand a little better; good luck
MattJHopefully it will all become clear to everyone as it matures
SamWhitedLet me know how I can help (other than writing code), etc.
MattJThanks :)
alameyohas joined
MattJI spent a chunk of last year trying to secure funding, but my attempts failed (partly because others also didn't see the purpose and I guess I'm still learning how to communicate it better)
MattJHence my focus on hosting, despite the irony at a project aiming to improve decentralization
Ge0rG> Some org to sort of act like a product manager for the public network.
The Jabber Software Foundation!1!
ZashGe0rG, not the JoinXMPP foundation?
Ge0rGZash: the public network is Jabber™
NeustradamusGe0rG: XMPP network!
MattJYou only make me want to jabber about the Jabber network more
Ge0rGNeustradamus: I have written about that distinction on the SMTP network before. Read it up!
Neustradamushttp://jabber.org/ and https://jabber.org/ do not work.
Andrzejhas joined
Ge0rG> http://jabber.org/ and https://jabber.org/ do not work.
Jabber is down.
MattJSince 2006
alameyohas left
LNJhas left
lovetoxhas joined
krauqhas left
Andrzejhas left
Wojtekhas joined
purplebeetroothas left
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
Andrzejhas joined
lovetoxhas left
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
LNJhas joined
Half-Shothas left
uhoreghas left
Matthewhas left
Rixon 👁🗨has left
Rixon 👁🗨has joined
uhoreghas joined
Half-Shothas joined
Matthewhas joined
marcWouldn't it be nice to have at least a single post on xmpp twitter about the whatsapp policy changes and advertisement for xmpp?
ZashSure would.
ZashBut something something neutrality? 😀
Ge0rGI suggested a text some days ago. Nothing happened.
MattJSorry, it wasn't clear to me at the time that you were asking for someone to post something
MattJI don't know who is active on Twitter but ping someone directly and avoid the bystander effect
Arnehas left
Ge0rGWell, it was a suggestion to tweet as @xmpp, made in the commteam MUC. Not sure how much more explicit I should have made it, not knowing who personally has write access to that account
marekhas left
marekhas joined
gavhas left
stefanhas left
stefanhas joined
Paganini> Wouldn't it be nice to have at least a single post on xmpp twitter about the whatsapp policy changes and advertisement for xmpp?
Yes, it would!!! Due to inaction, XMPP is missing a great opportunity to gain many new users. XMPP is letting itself be overtaken by Telegram and Signal.
PaganiniFacebook posts would be important too...
lovetoxhas joined
GuusKindly start drafting texts.
Ge0rGGuus: see my suggestion in commteam@, four days ago
ZashWho knows who has access to twitter / other social media accounts?
Ge0rGBoard does?
GuusDidn't we grant commteam access not to long ago?
GuusI might have the ability to post tweets, but not to grand other access. IIRC, Kev does.
lovetoxhas left
PaganiniWe need a propaganda team, with local groups (on every country).
Ge0rGPaganini: you volunteer?
mathieuiwe have one, everyone is just stretched quite thin as far as I’m aware
Paganini> Paganini: you volunteer?
Yes, why not?
marekhas left
marekhas joined
papatutuwawahas joined
Arnehas joined
andyhas left
Link MauvePaganini, their room is xmpp:commteam@muc.xmpp.org?join
marcPaganini: awesome, thanks!
lovetoxhas joined
Link MauveOr should I say, your room now. :)
marekhas left
marekhas joined
wurstsalatGe0rG, since you talked to gov officials regarding XMPP, this might be of interest as well https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/DE/Pressemitteilungen/2020/12_11_2020_SU_Messenger_Dienste.html
the admin of xmpp:conversations@conference.jabber.de?join is already in contact, sending some contact infos for a survey
krauqhas joined
Steve Killehas left
Paganini> Paganini: awesome, thanks!
My pleasure.
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
emusI plan to write at least a tweet, but let me pass an interview on thursday first
Steve Killehas joined
lovetoxhas left
marcemus: wow, what interview?
lovetoxhas joined
LNJhas left
PaganiniI think that when advertising XMPP we have to put the target audience on the path to choosing good service providers...
One thing I've noticed is that for most people it is very important to be able to send/receive all types of files, including large files (about 100Mb or more). But it turns out that many XMPP service providers only allow the transmission of files up to a maximum of about 3Mb... So I think it would be important to route people to service providers which allow the transmission of large files (even if encrypted), namely through end-to-end transmission.
emusJob interview, but unrelated
emusmarc:
marcAh :D
mathijshas left
marcPaganini: +1
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
alameyohas joined
jonas’Paganini, end-to-end transmission is always possible and modern clients will fall back to that if the file size is restricted on the server side
jonas’but it doesn’t work with 1:n scenarios
emus@board & @council as not offered from anyone else located in DE, I am offering my contact to the cartell office approach one in the XMPP community is thriving
emus@board & @council if not offered from anyone else located in DE, I am offering my contact to the cartell office approach one in the XMPP community is thriving
jonas’emus, as council chair, I’d be happy to, but I think this is more of a board matter.
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
emusYes ok, I dont need to do it alone, so happy if there are at least supporters and people in the background I can talk to
Paganini> Paganini, end-to-end transmission is always possible and modern clients will fall back to that if the file size is restricted on the server side
> but it doesn’t work with 1:n scenarios
I'm currently using Movim service provider and I'm not able to transfer files over 3Mb...
jonas’emus, you cannot represent the XSF without an official statement from board, mind
emusNo interest to do so.
emusJust saying that want to support this from a general perspective
LNJhas joined
alameyohas left
marc> Paganini, end-to-end transmission is always possible and modern clients will fall back to that if the file size is restricted on the server side
> but it doesn’t work with 1:n scenarios
e2e transmission is really bad in most use cases IMO
ZashHarder to have reliable, but less taxing on the servers.
jonas’thanks to the spread of TURN, it should also be more realistically achieveable ;)
ZashWasn't Proxy65 wide-spread enough already?
deuillhas left
LNJhas left
emusJust saying that I want to support this from a general perspective
Arnehas left
deuillhas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
paulhas left
marcStill not multi device and painful when on mobile
marcShould be avoided whenever possible IMO
paulhas joined
LNJhas joined
mathijshas joined
peetahhas left
peetahhas joined
pasdesushihas joined
intosihas left
nycohas left
nycohas joined
papatutuwawahas left
andrey.ghas joined
pasdesushihas left
lovetoxhas left
intosihas joined
neshtaxmpphas left
neshtaxmpphas joined
Yagizahas left
lovetoxhas joined
Arnehas joined
alameyohas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
intosihas left
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
Andrzejhas left
purplebeetroothas joined
alameyohas left
Andrzejhas joined
waqashas joined
intosihas joined
paulhas left
andyhas joined
werdanhas joined
intosihas left
PaganiniWell, it seems 404.city supports file transmission up to 2Gb!!!