XSF Discussion - 2021-01-26

  1. arc

    It looks like you're going to have a foss foundations drinkup on BigBlueButton video conference on Feb 5 at 7pm Brussels time.

  2. Neustradamus

    There is a problem with xmpp.com/www.xmpp.com, on Google, when we search XEP, the results can be https://www.xmpp.com instead of https://xmpp.org.

  3. moparisthebest

    Does the xsf own that domain?

  4. moparisthebest

    It looks like it points to our servers, but the certs are wrong

  5. Neustradamus


  6. moparisthebest

    Needs cert and a 301 redirect

  7. jonas’

    those are our nameservers, so yeah

  8. Neustradamus


  9. stp

    Hi, did anyone ever try to make Google replace the term Jabber with XMPP in the Android contacts?

  10. flow

    i guess that would first require us to have a clear stance that this is what we want

  11. flow

    anyhow, I am not aware of any such attempt

  12. stp

    flow, According to a discussion I initiated in this MUC some days ago the Jabber term should not be used anymore.

  13. jonas’

    says who?

  14. jonas’

    my impression was that we’re split in two fractions: one fraction who wishes to market XMPP, one fraction who wishes to market a different term, and for lack of a better one, Jabber is currently their favourite.

  15. dwd

    Market to whom, is a key deciding factor, I feel.

  16. jonas’

    that, too

  17. jonas’

    given that this is about android contacts and the other discussion the other day, I inferred "to users" though

  18. jonas’

    given that this is about android contacts and the other discussion the other day, I inferred "to (IM) users" though

  19. dwd

    Ah, right. Yes, if we're marketing to users than XMPP is not ideal.

  20. dwd

    Especially as the XMPP Standards Foundation doesn't appear to want to market to users.

  21. MattJ

    FWIW it's not only Android, iOS also has a Jabber field

  22. MattJ

    It probably stems from vCard

  23. dwd

    Probably not; we added in jabber as a non-standard extension in our standard.

  24. MattJ

    Oh really?

  25. dwd

    IIRC, anyway.

  26. dwd

    Yeah, XEP-0054§2, third para.

  27. MattJ

    vCard 4 has IMPP it seems

  28. jonas’


  29. dwd

    Does Android actually use vCard4?

  30. MattJ

    I'd be surprised

  31. Zash

    https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4770 applies to earlier vCard too I think

  32. stp

    Zash, hm, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4770 just mentions XMPP.

  33. mdosch

    Marketing Jabber is also a problem as you scare away people who associate it with 'Cisco Jabber' (happened to me twice) and it's a trademark from Cisco. So as long as there is no better term I call it XMPP even if this is not ideal.

  34. Zash

    stp, the abstract says that it's an URI, the Introduction lists a number of examples

  35. Zash

    Only mention of XMPP I see is that + informative reference to the xmpp URI spec

  36. stp

    While the term XMPP may not be ideal, how many products world wide became very successful using names which were probably not ideal? Having *two* names for the *same* thing though is way worse, near fatal even especially since with XMPP there are also all those client names in the mix and to an extent XMPP provider names. I also think XMPP isn't that bad actually.

  37. dwd

    The IETF would never refer to XMPP as Jabber. The name XMPP was literally invented to avoid that.

  38. stp

    Zash, ok, but no mention of Jabber.

  39. Zash

    But that wasn't what that tangent was about

  40. dwd

    stp, You might notice that "HTTP" and "The Web" are two different names, yet seem to work OK.

  41. stp

    dwd, those are two different things though.

  42. Zash

    That was about the IMPP vCard property predating vCard4, and is what's used to store Jabber/XMPP addresses in address books, unless some non-standard property like X-JABBER is used

  43. stp

    Since I lack the knowledge I'm confused now regarding the Android contacts/Vcard topic. So to clear that up: Does Google just follow what the vCard standard specifies?

  44. flow

    I think it was labeled "Jabber" in Android many, many years ago

  45. flow

    Back then Jabber was more used. And nobody ever revisited the name

  46. stp

    flow, I can confirm that in 2011 is was already labeled Jabber.

  47. stp

    flow, so probably since Android was started.

  48. Zash

    Looks like this old Android uses X-JABBER in vCard 2.1

  49. Ge0rG

    In my legacy Android XMPP code from ten years ago, I have support for imto://jabber/ URIs

  50. Daniel

    That's still useful today

  51. Ge0rG

    but it looks like I have no code to actually handle those intents.

  52. Ge0rG

    oh, it just ignores the scheme. If host == "jabber" then chatWith(path[0])

  53. stp

    So is there any place where it would make sense to file an issue regrading the use of Jabber or XMPP in Android contacts?

  54. Ge0rG

    stp: I think that'd be a task for the Jabber Software Foundation

  55. moparisthebest


  56. Ge0rG

    moparisthebest: oh please no

  57. moparisthebest

    I figured "Jabber Software Foundation" was "Cisco", don't know who else it'd be :)

  58. jonas’

    moparisthebest, old name of the XSF, nowadays nonexistent.

  59. Daniel

    I'm not even sure there is anything in 'android' calling it Jabber. Isn't it just the contacts apps

  60. moparisthebest

    right, nowadays it's Cisco

  61. Daniel

    You can probably PR the aosp contact apps

  62. Daniel

    Or other relevant open source contacts apps

  63. Daniel

    But that only buys you so much

  64. Ge0rG

    As a member of the "use Jabber™ for the federated IM network, XMPP for the protocol" faction, I oppose that change.

  65. mdosch

    Isn't IMPP the vcard standard for im?

  66. Neustradamus

    The XMPP network :)

  67. stp

    Daniel, since all contacts app I came across called that field "Jabber" I suspected that that is baked into a layer below the contact apps. Or also possible that all those apps were just reskinned AOSP contact apps.

  68. Ge0rG

    I have written multiple SMTP messages about that which can be obtained from the IMAP and the HTTPS networks.

  69. Daniel

    stp: yes a lot of them are probably forked from the asop app

  70. mdosch

    > Isn't IMPP the vcard standard for im? But at lest Wikipedia mentions X-JABBER as extension.

  71. moparisthebest

    if "email" were owned by google I'd be opposed to using the word "email" too

  72. Zash

    Have fun: https://github.com/aosp-mirror/platform_packages_apps_contacts/search?q=Jabber

  73. mdosch

    > Daniel, since all contacts app I came across called that field "Jabber" I suspected that that is baked into a layer below the contact apps. Or also possible that all those apps were just reskinned AOSP contact apps. Let's have a look at RFC6350 😃

  74. stp

    Ge0rG, That's the worst solution of the four for marketing the system to the general public.

  75. Ge0rG

    stp: What do you mean by "that", and what four solutions are you talking about?

  76. Ge0rG

    As the developer of Bruno the Jabber™ Bear, I am proud to say that I have both the XSF's and bear's approval to use that name.

  77. mdosch


  78. mdosch

    So, shouldn't X-JABBER be dropped in favour of IMPP;PREF=1:xmpp:alice@example.com

  79. mdosch

    So, shouldn't X-JABBER be dropped in favour of IMPP;PREF=1:xmpp:alice@example.com ?

  80. Zash

    mdosch, this is the way

  81. dwd

    Zash, The IETF Has Spoken.

  82. stp

    Ge0rG, Those four being | XMPP | Jabber | Jabber for the network, XMPP for the protocol | Jabber-XMPP or vice versa.

  83. Ge0rG

    stp: #5 is "zimpy" :P

  84. SamWhited

    I don't especially care what we call the public network (Jabber or something else) as long as we don't call it "XMPP", so I'm with Ge0rG. They are two different things and shouldn't share a name.

  85. stp

    Ge0rG, never heard that, but by four I meant the possiblities without introducing an entirely new name.

  86. SamWhited

    (and also XMPP is a fine name for a protocol, because "who cares?", it's not a fine name for a product. See also the "email/IMAP" example others have also given)

  87. SamWhited

    stp: "zimpy" is a joke, some people pronounce "XMPP" that way.

  88. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: it's only half a joke

  89. SamWhited

    Heh, I was just typing "well, I duno if Ge0rG means it as a joke or not"

  90. Zash

    It's all fun and games until Big Corporation owns the trademark.

  91. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: I think it's a good serious alternative name for jabber in case that one day Cisco wakes up and retracts the XSFs rights

  92. stp

    The E-Mail comparison is wrong, since E-Mail covers multiple protocols.

  93. SamWhited

    I don't see what that has to do with anything

  94. Ge0rG

    But I'm pretty sure that we have enough power to use and re-license Jabber™ in a fashion appropriate for the federated network

  95. SamWhited

    email is the network, IMAP/SMTP/JMAP are protocols, I wouldn't lump them all together under one name.

  96. dwd

    stp, X.400?

  97. Ge0rG

    as long as Cisco doesn't stand up to threaten us or users of the name, I think the permissions given by Jabber Inc to the XSF are sufficient and safe enough to keep the well-established Jabber™ name

  98. Ge0rG

    stp: so why do you think using "Jabber" for the network is bad?

  99. moparisthebest

    relying on the goodwill of cisco once the name is in widespread use seems like a terrible plan

  100. Daniel

    Ge0rG: because jabber is the crappy Cisco product

  101. moparisthebest

    and that ^

  102. Ge0rG

    Daniel: most people don't even know it.

  103. Ge0rG

    also IIRC Cisco has been rebranding it to WebEx-something

  104. SamWhited

    I tend to agree with Ge0rG that XMPP is a bad name for general users, but also with Daniel et al. that relying on the good will of Cisco seems like a bad idea.

  105. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: stpeter repeatedly made the claim that we are not relying on their goodwill but on our contracts with them.

  106. moparisthebest

    I've been telling people to install either Quicksy or Snikket, depending if they want to host it themselves or not...

  107. SamWhited

    Ge0rG: it's the same thing when one side has billions of dollars and lawyers and the other side doesn't.

  108. stp

    Ge0rG, I don't think it's bad, but the legal uncertainty make it a no-go and the XMPP term already became too prominent by the constant use of terms like Jabber/XMPP and more recently you come across the XMPP more often even than Jabber.

  109. Ge0rG

    moparisthebest: yes, but people then don't understand that they can use Quicksy to talk to Snikket users

  110. Ge0rG

    stp: I think this is only true among protocol nerds

  111. moparisthebest

    I explain that with an analogy to email where they can email someone @outlook.com with their @gmail.com address

  112. Ge0rG

    And regarding the legal uncertainity, yes, we are in a sh*tty place. If we (the Jabber Software Foundation) had a million dollars, we could establish Zimpy as the new name of Jabber

  113. mathieui

    There would probably be a better use for a million dollars though.

  114. SamWhited

    Personally, if I were making a chat service I probably just wouldn't mention either at all. Maybe a blurb that says "Also chat with your friends on these networks and more!" and stick the conversations logo or what not at the bottom

  115. stp

    Ge0rG, I don't think so when websites of public XMPP servers don't even mention Jabber.

  116. Zash

    Sam: Like Snikket!

  117. SamWhited

    Probably wouldn't even mention Jabber and *definitely* wouldn't mention XMPP, so maybe it wouldn't matter at all to me.

  118. SamWhited

    Zash: indeed!

  119. dwd

    SamWhited, I think that at some point, a list of networks becomes unweildy, and you need a collective name.

  120. Zash

    Tho if you read until the very end of the page about "The Snikket Network", it does say XMPP there

  121. SamWhited

    dwd: I don't have to actually list every possible thing, just a handful of nice products with good logos. Maybe the last one is the XSF logo and it links to the list of public servers or something.

  122. Ge0rG

    stp: is that a personal impression or do you have stats? Jabber is a very common term in some Jabber communities, e.g. in Russia

  123. Zash

    Something something chat-network-interconnect? Inter-chat-net? Internet?

  124. moparisthebest

    some people call xmpp "part of the fediverse" but that's confusing to me too

  125. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: that only achieves the effect that only people interested in protocols will realize the important fact that it's federated and interoparble, but they already know that.

  126. stp

    Ge0rG, no stats, but by personal impression the term jabber get's used less and less.

  127. SamWhited

    Ge0rG: no, it means nobody has to care and users will just see "Oh, my friend used that fancy Snikket logo, maybe I can talk to him too!"

  128. SamWhited

    Only people interested in protocols will care what "federated" means in the first place

  129. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: users will think "oh no, please not yet another chat app!"

  130. dwd

    stp, It feels as though you have decided your conclusion and are now working on supporting it with evidence.

  131. SamWhited

    I don't see why that would be the case if it lists a bunch of shiny logos. If it just says "Compatible with Jabber" though they now have to know that it's not a specific service.

  132. dwd

    stp, Also, nearly all of my work for the past decade has been with XMPP, but virtually none of it with public chat networks.

  133. SamWhited

    But I dunno, I have zero idea how a marketing person would approach this

  134. moparisthebest

    stp, regardless you have your answer, a small group of protocol enthusiasts can't agree on what to call it, good luck convincing anyone else :D

  135. Ge0rG

    We are getting beaten to death by Matrix marketing.

  136. moparisthebest

    Ge0rG, matrix marketing or element or riot or ?

  137. moparisthebest

    naming, it's hard

  138. Daniel

    I think the approach that snikket and to an extend Conversations are taking (establish your own brand) is the way to go

  139. Ge0rG

    moparisthebest: for some reason they don't have any issue with just re-using other brands' names.

  140. Daniel

    And just put xmpp compatible in a corner somewhere

  141. mathieui

    moparisthebest, it does not matter, they are marketing it as a bundle (and element = riot nowadays)

  142. dwd

    mathieui, Aren't both of them New Vector?

  143. Ge0rG

    Daniel: from each project's perspective, focusing on its own marketing is the most reasonable. But from an ecosystem perspective, everybody will profit from a common name.

  144. stp

    Calling SMS just that worked too, so the general public should've enough brain power to remember a four letter acronym.

  145. Ge0rG

    Something something local maxima

  146. mathieui

    dwd, Matrix is not New Vector, even if it is by and large the same people, they have nonprofit UK foundation

  147. SamWhited

    stp: I don't think that's true. It's completely anecdotal, but everyone I know knows what "text messaging" are but have no idea what "SMS" or "MMS" are

  148. stp

    Daniel, "And just put xmpp compatible in a corner somewhere" I would agree on that, though in the current state there would still be a debate to rather put "Jabber-compatible" there.

  149. SamWhited

    If it's just a brand with a tiny XSF logo in the corner I'm not sure that it matters as much if I put "Jabber" and someone else puts "XMPP"

  150. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: well, let's use the XSF logo then!

  151. moparisthebest

    actually not a bad idea

  152. Ge0rG

    "Bruno, the XSF-compatible Chat Bear"

  153. stp

    SamWhited, in which part of the world is that?

  154. Ge0rG

    My biggest (but rather small) point with that is that XMPP is more than just federated IM

  155. SamWhited

    stp: U.S.

  156. dwd

    Ge0rG, I'm not convinced by "Chat". Or "Bear".

  157. dwd

    Ge0rG, And yes, as I noted above, I've done a lot with XMPP, some of it federated, none of it on the Internet for consumer chat.

  158. dwd

    Well, almost none.

  159. stp

    Why does the XSF not do a democratic vote to settle the matter before it's too late (if it isn't already)?

  160. Ge0rG

    stp: it's probably too late by 17 years.

  161. moparisthebest

    probably get a different answer today vs tommorow

  162. moparisthebest

    and you are asking for a democratic vote between what? 30 people?

  163. SamWhited

    What is the goal of actually picking one for everybody to use when saying what their messenger is?

  164. dwd

    stp, The XSF doesn't market consumer chat *at all*.

  165. dwd

    stp, So a vote would be largely pointless.

  166. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: to make people understand that their messenger can messenge with other messengers that are not named the same

  167. moparisthebest

    dwd, except for when it does? :) https://xmpp.org/2021/01/instant-messaging-its-not-about-the-app/

  168. dwd

    stp, You'd need to get the membership to agree to start marketing consumer (and/or enterprise) chat first.

  169. dwd

    moparisthebest, I'm not sure that is either, actually.

  170. SamWhited

    I dunno, I'm pretty convinced it won't matter at all unless we get one or two big well known networks using it again. "XMPP" or "Jabber" as a marketable concept basically died with Google Talk IMO. If you don't have a popular brand to advertise compatibility with, it hardly matters if that compatibility is called "Jabber" or "XMPP".

  171. SamWhited

    So let's get Conversations or Snikket really popular or something first, then we can hash out what logo to put in the corner when it actually matters.

  172. stp

    SamWhited, but it matters if it's called both variantly.

  173. Daniel

    I've been advocating for 'Conversations compatible' for a while

  174. moparisthebest

    dwd, I mean it's certainly not an article targeting developers "Several people have recently reached out to me asking what kind of messenger they should be using now" (first sentence) sounds like consumer chat to me

  175. SamWhited

    stp: I don't think it does if no one cares about the compatibility anyways

  176. SamWhited

    I'm not even really convinced it does if there were a giant popular service using it, but at least then there's maybe an argument that it actually maters in some real way

  177. moparisthebest

    the point I've seen everyone (including me) trying to push lately is that *federation* is what matters

  178. dwd

    moparisthebest, And then it goes onto suggest that the technology matters more than anything else. If that's marketing to consumers, it's terrible marketing. :-)

  179. SamWhited

    What dwd said. Nobody outside of a fairly tiny tech crowd cares what federation is or what technology is in use under the hood as long as they can chat with their friends and it has shiny features.

  180. dwd

    moparisthebest, And broadly, yes, I agree that Federation is a crucial feature.

  181. moparisthebest

    they do care about federation though, they just don't know the word

  182. moparisthebest

    they would care if they couldn't email people at different domains though

  183. stp

    SamWhited, so how would an Monal on iOS user figure out that he can chat with his Conversations using friend?

  184. dwd

    moparisthebest, SamWhited - I think moparisthebest is right here, users don't know the word federation, but they do understand the outcome.

  185. SamWhited

    Yah, that's fair, but the point is that still means we shouldn't market federation as a feature (at least not by that name).

  186. SamWhited

    Get a big popular chat product, then market as "compatible with other big popular chat product!" and people will use it and still won't know that it's federated.

  187. stp

    It also created a mess when consumer electronic manufacturer all introduced their own name for HDMI-CEC.

  188. moparisthebest

    right, I think the question is how to say "this app federates with all the other XMPP app" in a way a normal person would understand

  189. dwd

    moparisthebest, Exactly that.

  190. Zash

    Call it "bridges" for confusion bonus

  191. stp

    Small XSF badge on app's, server's and provider's logos would be a start.

  192. SamWhited

    Exactly. And I doubt they'd understand "Jabber" or "XMPP", so that's why I suspect it would need a big popular service everything can glomp on to (that's a technical term) first.

  193. SamWhited

    But sure, put the badge in the corner for those that understand it. They'll probably understand it whether it says "XMPP" or "Jabber", so I doubt it matters the more I think about it.

  194. moparisthebest

    the point is to *not* get a big popular service though, it's to get a healthy distributed/federated service going, at least in my mind anyhow

  195. moparisthebest

    "you can use any or all of these and still be able to communicate with everyone who chose differently"

  196. SamWhited

    I didn't say it had to be the only service, but if literally none of them are popular at all it's not helpful

  197. SamWhited

    Because it doesn't matter what we do, Google or whomever *will* develop a big popular chat service. The question isn't "can we compete with them as a network", because the answer to that is "no". The question is "can we be compatible with them because we convinced them to use a federated protocol"

  198. SamWhited

    And then use that to our advantage and get people on other nodes.

  199. dwd

    I think there are actually two big "Magical Things"; one is federation (You can talk to us with any compatible service!) and the other is the End To End Principle (If you're both using our great app Discussions, you can use our great new feature).

  200. moparisthebest

    I'm not so sure, it's obvious people will switch en-masse very quickly

  201. SamWhited

    Even better "then can we also convince <other big popular messenger> to be compatible because Google is" or whatever. Then again, maybe we've already seen that the answer to that is also "no", I'm not sure.

  202. dwd

    SamWhited, Actually, it was other things starting to hook into Google Talk that appeared to pressure Google into dropping interop.

  203. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: Google is developing a big popular chat service once a year.

  204. Ge0rG

    dwd: "other things" being spambots?

  205. dwd

    Ge0rG, Also true Probably XMPP again next year.

  206. dwd

    Ge0rG, No, Microsoft, for one.

  207. SamWhited

    Ge0rG: exactly, so let's convince them to do new ones that are actually compatible

  208. SamWhited

    dwd: how so? I thought their argument was "no one else will federate with us, so why bother?"

  209. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: I'm sure you know as well as I do that federated messaging is the opposite of the vendor lock-in goals the bigcorps are following

  210. SamWhited

    Ge0rG: of course? I don't understand your point

  211. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: unless by "convince" you meant "create legislation"

  212. SamWhited

    If you want people to understand federation and actually switch to smaller providers, they have to be able to talk to their friends on the big providers. If they start on the big providers, then their friend says "I use small provider with more features", they can switch easily. Also it makes it easier for us to say "Compatible with Google Talk 2.0!" or whatever because everyone will know and care what that is.

  213. SamWhited

    Ge0rG: sure, I dunno if it's possible or even easy, I just think it's the necessary thing we should be working towards if we're going to talk about marketing names.

  214. SamWhited

    err, "easy or even possible", you know what I mean.

  215. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: if it would align with their business interests, we would have it for decades now. If it would be orthogonal to their business needs, we'd have somthing like google talk 1.0

  216. Ge0rG

    Unfortunately, it's opposite to their business needs

  217. SamWhited

    I'm not sure that it is, we just have to position it correctly.

  218. Ge0rG

    I'm sure Google would disable federation for gmail as soon as they could get away with it.

  219. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: please tell me more!

  220. SamWhited

    There were murmors interanlly at HipChat (though I never convinced anyone to let me start on it before it all went under) that if we were federated people would use us because their contractors could be on a different instance, for example. That made handling security between the two domains easy. It also made it easy to bring in a random one-off customer or something into a chat without having to buy them a seat

  221. SamWhited

    We never got buy in because the feature would have been so expensive to develop, but there were at least a lot of discussions about how it could be a selling point.

  222. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: good point; it's important to the business customers

  223. Ge0rG

    I'm using MS Teams day-to-day, and its "federation" is just a cruel joke.

  224. Ge0rG

    And technically it's not even federation because it's all in the same clown.

  225. SamWhited

    I think you could argue the same for a lot of individual chats too though. Chat isn't where you're making your money if you're Google, it's a value add. Is it a bigger value add if your friends can talk to their friends on Microsoft Chat and say "wow, yours is doing that? That's terrible! You should switch your email to Google, I'm chatting on them right now and it will keep working with all your other friends"

  226. moparisthebest

    SamWhited, I disagree, just have to make it easy to convince your friends on big providers to talk with you from not-big-provider account

  227. SamWhited

    (or whatever the thing you're actually competing on is, I suspect email isn't a money maker for them either)

  228. Neustradamus

    Gaim is the old name of Pidgin Jabber is the old name of XMPP

  229. SamWhited

    moparisthebest: that's the point, if they can still talk to their friends you can move them over 1 by 1 based on a feature or something they'd like and not have the complete blocker (for most people) of adding another chat app and moving their entire network at once.

  230. moparisthebest

    all big providers actively block 3rd parties from connecting, that's a non-starter

  231. moparisthebest

    you make it easy for them to install an app to talk to you

  232. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: vendor lock-in means that once you have a critical mass, federation is harmful to your growth

  233. SamWhited

    That was the whole point, I was aruging we shoudl be trying to convince them that federation is in their best interest, and then it's also in the interest of the smaller providers

  234. moparisthebest

    you'll never get there

  235. SamWhited

    Ge0rG: not if it's only a value add and not your primary product (I think)

  236. moparisthebest

    I mean, it's a good goal, wouldn't hurt to try, I'd just bet money it wouldn't happen

  237. moparisthebest

    "hey buddy I know your entire goal is vendor lock-in but how about you implement this thing that works against vendor lock-in as a favor to me?"

  238. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: if it's only a value add, then it's a means to get people onto your vendor solution

  239. SamWhited

    Ge0rG: sure, so Google wins because they convince people to switch to Google Docs or whatever without losing their social networking bits, and we win because we can convince people to switch to smaller providers by saying "Wow, compatible with Google Talk 2!" or whatever

  240. moparisthebest

    that's how you get people who hate crappy XMPP because pidgin+google talk sucked

  241. SamWhited

    Sure, but that's not a problem that we're going to solve by calling it "XMPP" vs "Jabber" and trying to market direct to consumer either.

  242. stp

    Pidgin and Google Talk sucked? I think it was great at the time.

  243. SamWhited

    Anyways, I've pretty much convinced myself that we need someone marketing to big providers, but I'm not sure who that is, and the best thing for smaller services is to just ignore XMPP/Jabber and create their own brand, because ours isn't going to do them any favors.

  244. SamWhited

    stp: at least for me a lot of people I know really liked it at the time, but everyone moved off of it when other providers came along with more features and Google Talk / Pidgin never moved on.

  245. moparisthebest

    maybe modernxmpp can agree on a logo that means "compatible", perhaps also host a page it can link to to explain in human words what it means, that all projects that want to can link to? cc MattJ

  246. Zash

    Pidgin and GTalk was probably great ... in 2006. And then it stayed mostly the same.

  247. SamWhited

    Good idea! I like that

  248. moparisthebest

    whether that's XSF logo or not no idea

  249. Ge0rG

    moparisthebest: ModernXMPP is even more cumbersome than XMPP

  250. dwd

    Ge0rG, Now there's a statement we can all get behind.

  251. MattJ

    moparisthebest, I agree with that sentiment, for sure

  252. stp

    SamWhited, Yes, same for our circle of people allthough we only changed when Goolge announced they would scrap their federating XMPP service and we left Pidgin when it couldn't keep up with XMPP developments.

  253. SamWhited

    Ge0rG: it doesn't have to say "ModernXMPP", it just has to be a pretty page with some logos on it that says "This service is compatible with all these other services!" o

  254. SamWhited

    Or be a page that has some general advice on how to do that, which seems like something ModernXMPP would be good at providing

  255. jonas’


  256. dwd

    A new logo that tesselated might be a fun thing.

  257. moparisthebest

    yes exactly what SamWhited said

  258. Zash

    Might be something to learn from "The Fediverse" aka ActivityPub/MastoPub

  259. MattJ

    ModernXMPP probably isn't the best term for users, but that can be solved

  260. moparisthebest

    I mean it'd be cool if xmpp.org could host the page too/instead but that seems more controversial :)

  261. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: let me remind you of XMPP Compliance Suite Compliance Badges.

  262. dwd


  263. MattJ

    What ModernXMPP is missing most is wider participation. A few people have contributed a few things, and that's great. But for it to work it needs to be far more comprehensive, well-structured and supported/reviewed by XMPP developers

  264. dwd


  265. SamWhited

    Ge0rG: is your argument that because one thing never materialized another project shouldn't bother making a page or providing guidance?

  266. MattJ

    I also would like some actual UX people involved

  267. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: not at all. I think that ModernXMPP is a good home for this kind of effort (only second to the Jabber Software Foundation)

  268. MattJ

    My other problem with ModernXMPP is that moving an open ecosystem is like herding cats... it can be done, but it's painful and takes time

  269. moparisthebest

    we got that solved, I think Neustradamus can create issues for each project to link the new page+logo ? :D

  270. Ge0rG

    moparisthebest: oh dear god please no

  271. moparisthebest

    this logo seems pretty good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse#/media/File:Fediverse_logo_proposal.svg

  272. SamWhited

    Please don't even joke about that 😤

  273. Ge0rG

    moparisthebest: the xmpp network logo needs to have client tentacles on all those circles

  274. mdosch

    moparisthebest: A colorful pentagram? > this logo seems pretty good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse#/media/File:Fediverse_logo_proposal.svg

  275. jonas’


  276. moparisthebest

    fediverse has clients too and they aren't on that logo

  277. Ge0rG

    moparisthebest: ITYM web browsers

  278. SamWhited


  279. SamWhited


  280. moparisthebest

    we got those clients too!

  281. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: missing "Zimpy"

  282. SamWhited

    Damn it. It was so close to perfect too.

  283. Ge0rG


  284. mdosch

    I'd like the pentagram turned 180° 🤘🏽

  285. Zash

    I'd just like to mention this glorious logo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NROL_39_vector_logo.svg

  286. SamWhited

    oh man, the US military and intelligence agencies come up with awesome logos all the time

  287. Ge0rG

    maybe we need to hire a designer to make an awesome logo

  288. Zash

    Ge0rG, worked for Snikket

  289. Ge0rG

    if it has some pyramid-eye or kraken symbol, it will trigger the fediverse, and as we all know bad press = good press

  290. Zash

    all press is good press indeed

  291. SamWhited

    IDGI, is that some fedivserse conspiracy theory iconography?

  292. Zash

    just don't mention "the competition"

  293. Ge0rG

    Zash: the snikket logo is cute, not controversial

  294. SamWhited

    Actually, I probably don't want to know

  295. Zash

    Ge0rG, I mean the "hire a designer" part

  296. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: nah, it's just the usual conspiracy theory iconography

  297. SamWhited

    *sigh* okay, TIL. I do not need or want to know more.

  298. SamWhited

    The garage I've been trying to find funds to open for years uses a font from an old CIA operation. So far no one has noticed, but I'm waiting for the day that people decide we're a front for a secret government takeover of auto mechanics or something

  299. dwd

    SamWhited, But that's just what you *want* me to think, right?

  300. SamWhited

    dwd: how'd you know? Who's been talking?

  301. dwd

    SamWhited, https://xkcd.com/2169/

  302. Zash

    Everyone knows it, educate yourself!!!11!!eleven

  303. SamWhited


  304. Zash

    Obs: That was satire. Do not use in actual debates.

  305. moparisthebest

    MattJ what if you toot out a call to the fediverse for logo proposals, seem to be a fair share of graphic-ly inclined people on there? or lazily use the XSF logo, I have no opinions :)

  306. MattJ

    I think using the XSF logo would confuse matters too much :)

  307. Ge0rG

    Using the XSF logo for what exactly?

  308. dwd

    Ge0rG, Everything.

  309. SamWhited

    I tend to lazily use the XSF logo and see a lot of other sites doing it, but I tend to agree that having something else for "compatible with lots of other things" would be better if we can manage it and make it catch on somehow

  310. moparisthebest

    the image+link to simple "explains why this is compatible to normal person" page

  311. Ge0rG

    SamWhited: I agree that the logo is actually good enough for that.

  312. Zash

    XMPP logo on top of a globe and the text "NOBODY IS BEYOND YOUR REACH"

  313. Ge0rG

    the logo, embedded into a catchy compliance badge

  314. Ge0rG

    Zash: and a kraken.

  315. Ge0rG

    can we put a pyramid with an eye into the bottom half of the "X"?

  316. Zash

    Kraken in the XMPP logo colors?

  317. Ge0rG

    Zash: yeah, or the fediverse rainbow. Your choice.

  318. dwd

    I am concerned that there is no discussion of Cthulu in our logo plans.

  319. dwd

    (Also amused that Kraken was, after all, a popular XMPP-to-anything transport gateway back in the day)

  320. moparisthebest

    this is why we need graphic-ly inclined people and not developers

  321. vanitasvitae

    Iͬ̿̋͡҉̸̩̩̣'̸̶̛̹͖̳̐̇̋m̛̜͙̳͐͒̽̀͢ ̧ͬ͑ͥ͏̟̮̟̀h̽̈́͌҉̛̲̜̖͝ę̶̼̭̰̄ͣ̿̕ȓ́ͩ҉̡̢̣̮͕e̡̘̥͋ͪ̊͠͠ͅ ̸̵̪̺̦ͤͣ̇͡t̶̸̨̬̠̤̂͛̈ơ̡̧͕̰͇̄ͦ̚ ̢̹̙̬̾ͭ̊͞͡s̴̸̭͉̲̐̒͑͝t̵̫̰̞̃̍ͭ͟͜ä̛̰͈̞͋̚͝͠ņ̶̨̜͉̜͒ͦ͊d̴͕͙͚ͯ̈̓́͞ạ̢̠̹̏ͪͫ́́r͔͕̫ͬ͗̓́́͢ḍ̴̴̛̱̺̎͑̿i̵ͨͭ̚͏̹̝̝͢ž̸̹̣̬̔ͪ̀͘ȩ̶̵̫͎̹̌͐͆ ̧̢̩̯̙̓̒̑͜y̷̛̮̠͍̏ͬ͌͠ơ̢͕̜̦̊͐ͬ͞u̴̶̷̻̭̗̾̅̚r̵̓̈̚̕҉̲̫͇ ̧̧̠̹̠͆̋ͬ̀c̴̓̊ͧ͏̵̹͚̙o̡̰̙̺̓̏ͣ͠͝m̨̨̛̹̞̝̽̈̓m̸̙̥̖̽̂̄͘͟ų̸̱̝̜̉̿̋͜n̴̴̪̘̲͊̈́̈́͞i̴̸͎͎̩̐̄́͝c̴͚͈̫͒̌͌́͞à̖͍̼̓ͨ͡͡͡t͕̺̂͆̍͘͢͠ͅi̗̘͙̋͆̅̕͞͡o͕̰̮ͨ͋̈́͝͠ņ̶̆ͯ͗҉̳̦̭s̴̡͔̲̪ͮ͛ͥ͜

  322. jonas’

    that looks fun in the dino preview :D

  323. mimi89999

    Hello vanitasvitae

  324. vanitasvitae

    mimi89999: hello there!

  325. vanitasvitae

    Zimpy, the brother of Zalgo

  326. Ge0rG

    vanitasvitae: that's my quote of the day

  327. vanitasvitae


  328. Ge0rG

    vanitasvitae: just one minor nitpick. We need to be gender-neutral, so it should be "sister/brother/sibling"

  329. vanitasvitae

    Or given how dusty XMPP as a protocol is, simply its Ancestor

  330. Ge0rG

    XMPP: Supporting Zalgo since 1999 and Emoji since 2010.

  331. jonas’

    /nick :robotface:

  332. emus

    Hello fellows, it would be great to have a second reviewer for the French translation: https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/875 For all of the other translation I have enough

  333. peetah

    emus: the translation is currently under review on linuxfr, and I hope it will be synced quite soone in the XSF github repo

  334. peetah

    emus: the translation is currently under review on linuxfr, and I hope it will be synced quite soon with the XSF github repo

  335. emus

    Ah okay, thats good to know

  336. emus


  337. emus

    Hello, I would like to arrange an official mail for the CommTeam. What would be the steps?

  338. jonas’

    emus, like in email address?

  339. jonas’

    I think that topic came up in the past

  340. emus

    Yes, but we stopped talking about it

  341. jonas’

    I’m trying to find the discussion

  342. jonas’

    I think we came to the conclusion that for the use case back then, it wasn’t necessary or useful

  343. jonas’

    what has changed on your side?

  344. emus

    several social network accounts with several private or non related mails

  345. emus

    An I would like to have a direct an clear address for the organisation etc.

  346. emus

    And I would like to have a direct an clear address for the organisation etc.

  347. flow

    some orgs use private mailing lists for this

  348. emus

    I don't need a have private mail list. I (we) need an email address which is related to XSF and not hosted on any private servers somewhere

  349. MattJ

    I don't know if we even have that capability currently

  350. MattJ

    We host mailing lists, I'm not sure if we host any actual mailboxes. I don't think we run an IMAP server, for example.

  351. MattJ

    But I could be wrong, I haven't looked

  352. jonas’

    no IMAP

  353. jonas’

    port 143 timeouts

  354. emus

    members@xmpp.org so those are all only mail list adresses

  355. MattJ


  356. jonas’

    yes, the contact addresses are all mailing lists

  357. jonas’

    which, if you think about it, has some advantages (you can easily add/remove people with access for example)

  358. emus

    Ok, then that confused me. So there is no official email for xsf etc?

  359. jonas’

    but you obviously cannot send messages from that address(*)

  360. jonas’

    emus, there is. I think there’s info@ and board@ and trademark@…

  361. emus

    Yes, and I cannot register with that

  362. jonas’

    though the latter may actually just be an alias for a single person

  363. emus

    Okay, but apart from capacities, I think it should be dealt with the account registrations and the XSF "sovereignty" on this

  364. jonas’

    running a mail server is not easy™

  365. emus

    Ok, I thought there is one running already

  366. jonas’

    I’m doing that for myself and I’ve got it automated to large parts. I could replicate that setup for the XSF, but then I’d be the SPOF

  367. emus


  368. jonas’

    emus, partially. it only does inbound (SMTP) and mailing lists

  369. jonas’

    single point of failure

  370. jonas’

    it doesn’t do outbound (Submission) or mailboxes (IMAP)

  371. emus

    Yes - I see

  372. jonas’

    so while it is technically a mail server, it is not a full mail setup

  373. moparisthebest

    isn't that really all you need for registering/maintaining accounts though? (a mailing list, recieve-only) ?

  374. jonas’

    moparisthebest, in general, yes.

  375. jonas’

    but emus seems to have special requirements?

  376. emus

    Okay, but I think the maintenance topic is severe already in general when I hear MattJ (also before). I think this is something that need kinda action. We cannot let basic infrastructure down (at least it sounds like this to me)

  377. moparisthebest

    I thought emus just wanted an email to use for, say, the twitter account? if so he's asking for a private email list for commteam ?

  378. emus

    No, receiving is minimum - sending would be "good", but for the moment I could work. But it does not make sense to create it on any non-XSF mail servers

  379. MattJ

    As has already been suggested, a private mailing list will suffice for that

  380. MattJ

    That's how the info@xmpp.org contact address for the XSF works

  381. moparisthebest

    *hopefully* no website exists where you have to *send* an email to verify identity, because email doesn't work that way

  382. emus

    Point is, when I register with an email to a service, they will only accept this mail in case there are any inquiries to the service

  383. emus

    yes, what mopar says

  384. jonas’

    emus, do you have a concrete example of a service where that is the case and there is no contact form on the website or similar?

  385. moparisthebest

    emus, it's ok because you can fake the sender from any email account :)

  386. emus

    I dont know jonas' but, I prefer not to register such a one-way email realizing one day that there is a case where I "need" to sent an email.

  387. emus

    No, thanks moparistthebest

  388. emus

    But in general, I think it is kind of weird and I am also a bit amazed, that we (the teams, responsible etc) don't have this possibility

  389. jonas’

    emus, ftr, I’ve been registering on ~all services with one-way addreses for a few years now

  390. emus

    In terms of Single Points of Failures: I think that is an important topic if the infrastructure capabilities are low.

  391. jonas’

    after I built a thing which allows me to get a throwaway, one-way email address via an XMPP ad-hoc command ;)

  392. emus

    jonas' okay, then I do so

  393. jonas’

    emus, exactly, hence I propose we try to make do with what we have :)

  394. emus

    at least a way to have it collected

  395. moparisthebest

    emus, if a service EVER requires you SEND them an email, drop them, they are totally insecure and vulnerable to impersonation

  396. emus

    jonas', I see but I think even this is not good

  397. moparisthebest

    there is no way to validate an email you just recieved came from who you think sent it

  398. moparisthebest

    email is not xmpp

  399. moparisthebest

    so, recieve-only is fine 100% of the time

  400. emus

    moparisthebest, I think maybe one day I (we) want to reach out to someone else via such an email.

  401. moparisthebest

    1. anyone can fake such an email right now 2. don't, just use it for twitter password resets

  402. emus

    I hope so. I think as a commteam... one wants to be able to send an email or provide this contact 🤷‍♂️️

  403. emus

    Okay, wait, I cannot use it as account email?

  404. moparisthebest

    a mailing list will just take whatever email was sent to it and forward it to your personal email (and everyone else's on the list)

  405. emus

    No, Im on what jonas' suggested

  406. emus

    no maillist (at least for now)

  407. moparisthebest

    you can send an email as bigboss@xmpp.org right now though and it's fairly likely to get through, maybe in spam, but probably will get through

  408. moparisthebest

    I thought jonas’ suggested a mailing list ?

  409. emus

    He suggested a receiving email only

  410. emus

    (I think)

  411. jonas’

    emus, in case of the XSF infrastructure using a mailing list

  412. emus

    But I thought I cannot use this for account reference?

  413. jonas’

    why not?

  414. emus

    Because any response to this is public I thought?

  415. jonas’


  416. jonas’

    you can also have mailing lists which are not (publicly) archived

  417. jonas’

    and which are essentially just forwarders to one or more other email addresses

  418. moparisthebest

    emus, twitter emails a password reset link to commteam@xmpp.org, it gets forwarded to your email, and 2 other members of the commteam, that's it

  419. emus

    If I place this email to the XSF Fosstodon account, any they send any password or private stuff, then its public

  420. jonas’


  421. jonas’

    just don’t enable (public) archives for the list, done.

  422. emus

    Okay, but there is still a non public archive for XSF responsibles?

  423. emus

    like, if you want to review a year later

  424. jonas’

    depends on the configuration

  425. jonas’

    you can have a public archive, a members only archive, or no archive at all

  426. emus

    Would member only be legit for that purpose

  427. emus


  428. moparisthebest

    seems perfect for it

  429. jonas’

    yep, I agree

  430. emus

    Then I would like to request such a list

  431. emus

    Should be better commteam_internal@xmpp.org

  432. jonas’

    I’ll see what I can do

  433. emus

    Okay, take your time of course

  434. emus

    But generally asking do we have real known Single Point of Failure?

  435. moparisthebest


  436. moparisthebest

    also depends what you mean by "we"

  437. emus


  438. moparisthebest

    but, xmpp.org infrastructure-wise, or organization-wise, or this-muc-wise, or?

  439. emus

    XSF-wise, all critical points

  440. moparisthebest

    offtopic PSA https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/01/26/3 looks like any user can get root using sudo since 2011, fun

  441. jonas’

    damn, couldn’t you have told me 10 minutes ago?

  442. jonas’

    also, holy fuck

  443. moparisthebest

    I always knew locales were a mistake :)

  444. jonas’

    brb updating all boxes

  445. jonas’

    brb updating all my boxes

  446. Holger

    Quite a few people knew sudo is a mistake but nobody ever listened ...

  447. SamWhited

    I always knew C was a mistake

  448. moparisthebest

    rust-sudo when

  449. lovetox

    seriously, everytime someone says to me, why dont you write that in C

  450. lovetox

    i think of these reports

  451. lovetox

    and then i think, nahh dont really want to get into this mess

  452. Zash

    moparisthebest, looks like that is a thing that exists, but all it does is make a program run itself with sudo....