It looks like you're going to have a foss foundations drinkup on BigBlueButton video conference on Feb 5 at 7pm Brussels time.
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
marekhas left
marekhas joined
krauqhas left
krauqhas joined
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.
antranigvhas left
moparisthebest
Does the xsf own that domain?
moparisthebest
It looks like it points to our servers, but the certs are wrong
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
Neustradamus
Yes
moparisthebest
Needs cert and a 301 redirect
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
krauqhas left
alex-a-sotohas left
krauqhas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
stphas left
alex-a-sotohas joined
marekhas left
marekhas joined
chronosx88has joined
murabitohas left
murabitohas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
Yagizahas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
Andrzejhas joined
Adihas joined
marekhas left
marekhas joined
krauqhas left
krauqhas joined
stphas joined
Andrzejhas left
stphas left
Lancehas joined
Lancehas left
alacerhas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
Tobiashas joined
archas left
archas joined
archas left
archas joined
alacerhas left
alacerhas joined
Sevehas joined
jcbrandhas joined
archas left
archas joined
Mikaelahas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
Mikaelahas left
emushas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
adiaholichas left
karoshihas joined
adiaholichas joined
wurstsalathas joined
goffihas joined
neshtaxmpphas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
goffihas left
alacerhas left
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
ti_gj06has joined
jonas’
those are our nameservers, so yeah
mdoschhas left
mdoschhas joined
moparisthebesthas left
marchas joined
marchas left
mdoschhas left
Danielhas left
mdoschhas joined
moparisthebesthas joined
Danielhas joined
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
marchas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
ti_gj06has left
mdoschhas left
mdoschhas joined
LNJhas joined
marchas left
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
edhelashas joined
jcbrandhas left
jcbrandhas joined
Guushas joined
eevvoorhas left
eevvoorhas joined
Guushas left
derdanielhas joined
derdanielhas left
esilhas joined
esilhas left
Andrzejhas joined
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
goffihas joined
ti_gj06has joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
Sevehas left
Kevin Smithhas joined
Kevin Smithhas left
Kevin Smithhas joined
Kevin Smithhas left
Kevin Smithhas joined
Kevin Smithhas left
antranigvhas joined
marchas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
Sevehas joined
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
adiaholichas left
lorddavidiiihas left
adiaholichas joined
ti_gj06has left
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
matkorhas left
antranigvhas left
stphas joined
goffihas left
goffihas joined
raghavgururajanhas left
ti_gj06has joined
goffihas left
Neustradamus
Crash?
stphas left
adiaholichas left
antranigvhas joined
Dele Olajidehas joined
Dele Olajidehas left
Dele Olajidehas joined
adiaholichas joined
goffihas joined
stphas joined
mukt2has joined
antranigvhas left
archas left
archas joined
archas left
archas joined
marchas left
marchas joined
marchas left
marchas joined
Wojtekhas joined
Mikaelahas joined
Mikaelahas left
Dele Olajidehas left
Dele Olajidehas joined
Steve Killehas left
raghavgururajanhas joined
Steve Killehas joined
Mikaelahas joined
goffihas left
marekhas left
marekhas joined
stp
Hi, did anyone ever try to make Google replace the term Jabber with XMPP in the Android contacts?
flow
i guess that would first require us to have a clear stance that this is what we want
flow
anyhow, I am not aware of any such attempt
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
ti_gj06has left
stp
flow, According to a discussion I initiated in this MUC some days ago the Jabber term should not be used anymore.
esilhas joined
esilhas left
ti_gj06has joined
jonas’
says who?
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.
dwd
Market to whom, is a key deciding factor, I feel.
jonas’
that, too
jonas’
given that this is about android contacts and the other discussion the other day, I inferred "to users" though✎
ti_gj06has left
jonas’
given that this is about android contacts and the other discussion the other day, I inferred "to (IM) users" though ✏
dwd
Ah, right. Yes, if we're marketing to users than XMPP is not ideal.
dwd
Especially as the XMPP Standards Foundation doesn't appear to want to market to users.
MattJ
FWIW it's not only Android, iOS also has a Jabber field
MattJ
It probably stems from vCard
dwd
Probably not; we added in jabber as a non-standard extension in our standard.
MattJ
Oh really?
dwd
IIRC, anyway.
dwd
Yeah, XEP-0054§2, third para.
MattJ
vCard 4 has IMPP it seems
jonas’
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6350#section-6.4.3
dwd
Does Android actually use vCard4?
MattJ
I'd be surprised
LNJhas left
Zash
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4770 applies to earlier vCard too I think
stp
Zash, hm, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4770 just mentions XMPP.
lskdjfhas joined
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.
Zash
stp, the abstract says that it's an URI, the Introduction lists a number of examples
Zash
Only mention of XMPP I see is that + informative reference to the xmpp URI spec
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.
LNJhas joined
dwd
The IETF would never refer to XMPP as Jabber. The name XMPP was literally invented to avoid that.
stp
Zash, ok, but no mention of Jabber.
Zash
But that wasn't what that tangent was about
dwd
stp, You might notice that "HTTP" and "The Web" are two different names, yet seem to work OK.
stp
dwd, those are two different things though.
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
matkorhas joined
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?
fuanahas joined
flow
I think it was labeled "Jabber" in Android many, many years ago
flow
Back then Jabber was more used. And nobody ever revisited the name
goffihas joined
fuanahas left
sonnyhas left
stp
flow, I can confirm that in 2011 is was already labeled Jabber.
stp
flow, so probably since Android was started.
Zash
Looks like this old Android uses X-JABBER in vCard 2.1
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
Tobiashas left
Tobiashas joined
eevvoorhas left
eevvoorhas joined
fuanahas joined
fuanahas left
fuanahas joined
fuanahas left
sonnyhas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
ti_gj06has joined
antranigvhas joined
alacerhas joined
alacerhas left
alacerhas joined
alacerhas left
andyhas joined
wladmishas joined
mukt2has left
Andrzejhas left
andyhas left
mukt2has joined
Andrzejhas joined
Neustradamushas left
Neustradamushas joined
andyhas joined
antranigvhas left
mukt2has left
marchas left
andyhas left
marchas joined
Mikaelahas left
emushas left
emushas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
Andrzejhas left
antranigvhas joined
Mikaelahas joined
Paganinihas left
nycohas left
edhelashas left
Neustradamushas left
Neustradamushas joined
Neustradamushas left
nycohas joined
Neustradamushas joined
Neustradamushas left
edhelashas joined
Neustradamushas joined
Paganinihas joined
lskdjfhas left
Ge0rG
In my legacy Android XMPP code from ten years ago, I have support for imto://jabber/ URIs
Daniel
That's still useful today
Ge0rG
but it looks like I have no code to actually handle those intents.
Ge0rG
oh, it just ignores the scheme. If host == "jabber" then chatWith(path[0])
lorddavidiiihas joined
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?
mukt2has joined
matkorhas left
matkorhas joined
Ge0rG
stp: I think that'd be a task for the Jabber Software Foundation
andyhas joined
moparisthebest
Cisco?
Ge0rG
moparisthebest: oh please no
moparisthebest
I figured "Jabber Software Foundation" was "Cisco", don't know who else it'd be :)
jonas’
moparisthebest, old name of the XSF, nowadays nonexistent.
Daniel
I'm not even sure there is anything in 'android' calling it Jabber. Isn't it just the contacts apps
moparisthebest
right, nowadays it's Cisco
Daniel
You can probably PR the aosp contact apps
Daniel
Or other relevant open source contacts apps
Daniel
But that only buys you so much
Ge0rG
As a member of the "use Jabber™ for the federated IM network, XMPP for the protocol" faction, I oppose that change.
mdosch
Isn't IMPP the vcard standard for im?
Neustradamus
The XMPP network :)
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.
Ge0rG
I have written multiple SMTP messages about that which can be obtained from the IMAP and the HTTPS networks.
Daniel
stp: yes a lot of them are probably forked from the asop app
mdosch
> Isn't IMPP the vcard standard for im?
But at lest Wikipedia mentions X-JABBER as extension.
moparisthebest
if "email" were owned by google I'd be opposed to using the word "email" too
Zash
Have fun: https://github.com/aosp-mirror/platform_packages_apps_contacts/search?q=Jabber
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 😃
stp
Ge0rG, That's the worst solution of the four for marketing the system to the general public.
Ge0rG
stp: What do you mean by "that", and what four solutions are you talking about?
ti_gj06has left
mukt2has left
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.
mdosch
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6350#section-6.4.3
mdosch
So, shouldn't X-JABBER be dropped in favour of IMPP;PREF=1:xmpp:alice@example.com✎
mdosch
So, shouldn't X-JABBER be dropped in favour of IMPP;PREF=1:xmpp:alice@example.com ? ✏
Zash
mdosch, this is the way
dwd
Zash, The IETF Has Spoken.
stp
Ge0rG, Those four being | XMPP | Jabber | Jabber for the network, XMPP for the protocol | Jabber-XMPP or vice versa.
Ge0rG
stp: #5 is "zimpy" :P
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.
stp
Ge0rG, never heard that, but by four I meant the possiblities without introducing an entirely new name.
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)
SamWhited
stp: "zimpy" is a joke, some people pronounce "XMPP" that way.
Ge0rG
SamWhited: it's only half a joke
SamWhited
Heh, I was just typing "well, I duno if Ge0rG means it as a joke or not"
Zash
It's all fun and games until Big Corporation owns the trademark.
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
stp
The E-Mail comparison is wrong, since E-Mail covers multiple protocols.
SamWhited
I don't see what that has to do with anything
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
SamWhited
email is the network, IMAP/SMTP/JMAP are protocols, I wouldn't lump them all together under one name.
dwd
stp, X.400?
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
Ge0rG
stp: so why do you think using "Jabber" for the network is bad?
moparisthebest
relying on the goodwill of cisco once the name is in widespread use seems like a terrible plan
Daniel
Ge0rG: because jabber is the crappy Cisco product
moparisthebest
and that ^
Ge0rG
Daniel: most people don't even know it.
Ge0rG
also IIRC Cisco has been rebranding it to WebEx-something
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.
archas left
archas joined
Ge0rG
SamWhited: stpeter repeatedly made the claim that we are not relying on their goodwill but on our contracts with them.
moparisthebest
I've been telling people to install either Quicksy or Snikket, depending if they want to host it themselves or not...
SamWhited
Ge0rG: it's the same thing when one side has billions of dollars and lawyers and the other side doesn't.
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.
Ge0rG
moparisthebest: yes, but people then don't understand that they can use Quicksy to talk to Snikket users
Ge0rG
stp: I think this is only true among protocol nerds
moparisthebest
I explain that with an analogy to email where they can email someone @outlook.com with their @gmail.com address
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
mathieui
There would probably be a better use for a million dollars though.
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
stp
Ge0rG, I don't think so when websites of public XMPP servers don't even mention Jabber.
Zash
Sam: Like Snikket!
SamWhited
Probably wouldn't even mention Jabber and *definitely* wouldn't mention XMPP, so maybe it wouldn't matter at all to me.
chronosx88has left
SamWhited
Zash: indeed!
chronosx88has joined
dwd
SamWhited, I think that at some point, a list of networks becomes unweildy, and you need a collective name.
Zash
Tho if you read until the very end of the page about "The Snikket Network", it does say XMPP there
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.
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
some people call xmpp "part of the fediverse" but that's confusing to me too
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.
stp
Ge0rG, no stats, but by personal impression the term jabber get's used less and less.
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!"
SamWhited
Only people interested in protocols will care what "federated" means in the first place
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
Ge0rG
SamWhited: users will think "oh no, please not yet another chat app!"
dwd
stp, It feels as though you have decided your conclusion and are now working on supporting it with evidence.
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.
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.
SamWhited
But I dunno, I have zero idea how a marketing person would approach this
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
Ge0rG
We are getting beaten to death by Matrix marketing.
moparisthebest
Ge0rG, matrix marketing or element or riot or ?
moparisthebest
naming, it's hard
Daniel
I think the approach that snikket and to an extend Conversations are taking (establish your own brand) is the way to go
Ge0rG
moparisthebest: for some reason they don't have any issue with just re-using other brands' names.
Daniel
And just put xmpp compatible in a corner somewhere
mathieui
moparisthebest, it does not matter, they are marketing it as a bundle (and element = riot nowadays)
dwd
mathieui, Aren't both of them New Vector?
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.
stp
Calling SMS just that worked too, so the general public should've enough brain power to remember a four letter acronym.
Ge0rG
Something something local maxima
mathieui
dwd, Matrix is not New Vector, even if it is by and large the same people, they have nonprofit UK foundation
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
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.
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"
Ge0rG
SamWhited: well, let's use the XSF logo then!
moparisthebest
actually not a bad idea
Ge0rG
"Bruno, the XSF-compatible Chat Bear"
stp
SamWhited, in which part of the world is that?
Ge0rG
My biggest (but rather small) point with that is that XMPP is more than just federated IM
SamWhited
stp: U.S.
dwd
Ge0rG, I'm not convinced by "Chat". Or "Bear".
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.
dwd
Well, almost none.
stp
Why does the XSF not do a democratic vote to settle the matter before it's too late (if it isn't already)?
Ge0rG
stp: it's probably too late by 17 years.
moparisthebest
probably get a different answer today vs tommorow
moparisthebest
and you are asking for a democratic vote between what? 30 people?
SamWhited
What is the goal of actually picking one for everybody to use when saying what their messenger is?
dwd
stp, The XSF doesn't market consumer chat *at all*.
dwd
stp, So a vote would be largely pointless.
Ge0rG
SamWhited: to make people understand that their messenger can messenge with other messengers that are not named the same
moparisthebest
dwd, except for when it does? :) https://xmpp.org/2021/01/instant-messaging-its-not-about-the-app/
dwd
stp, You'd need to get the membership to agree to start marketing consumer (and/or enterprise) chat first.
dwd
moparisthebest, I'm not sure that is either, actually.
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".
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.
LNJhas left
stp
SamWhited, but it matters if it's called both variantly.
Daniel
I've been advocating for 'Conversations compatible' for a while
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
SamWhited
stp: I don't think it does if no one cares about the compatibility anyways
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
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
moparisthebest
the point I've seen everyone (including me) trying to push lately is that *federation* is what matters
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. :-)
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.
dwd
moparisthebest, And broadly, yes, I agree that Federation is a crucial feature.
moparisthebest
they do care about federation though, they just don't know the word
moparisthebest
they would care if they couldn't email people at different domains though
andyhas left
stp
SamWhited, so how would an Monal on iOS user figure out that he can chat with his Conversations using friend?
dwd
moparisthebest, SamWhited - I think moparisthebest is right here, users don't know the word federation, but they do understand the outcome.
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).
papatutuwawahas joined
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.
stp
It also created a mess when consumer electronic manufacturer all introduced their own name for HDMI-CEC.
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
dwd
moparisthebest, Exactly that.
Zash
Call it "bridges" for confusion bonus
stp
Small XSF badge on app's, server's and provider's logos would be a start.
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.
andyhas joined
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.
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
moparisthebest
"you can use any or all of these and still be able to communicate with everyone who chose differently"
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
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"
SamWhited
And then use that to our advantage and get people on other nodes.
debaclehas joined
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).
moparisthebest
I'm not so sure, it's obvious people will switch en-masse very quickly
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.
dwd
SamWhited, Actually, it was other things starting to hook into Google Talk that appeared to pressure Google into dropping interop.
Ge0rG
SamWhited: Google is developing a big popular chat service once a year.
Ge0rG
dwd: "other things" being spambots?
dwd
Ge0rG, Also true Probably XMPP again next year.
dwd
Ge0rG, No, Microsoft, for one.
SamWhited
Ge0rG: exactly, so let's convince them to do new ones that are actually compatible
SamWhited
dwd: how so? I thought their argument was "no one else will federate with us, so why bother?"
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
SamWhited
Ge0rG: of course? I don't understand your point
Ge0rG
SamWhited: unless by "convince" you meant "create legislation"
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.
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.
SamWhited
err, "easy or even possible", you know what I mean.
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
Ge0rG
Unfortunately, it's opposite to their business needs
SamWhited
I'm not sure that it is, we just have to position it correctly.
Ge0rG
I'm sure Google would disable federation for gmail as soon as they could get away with it.
Ge0rG
SamWhited: please tell me more!
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
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.
Ge0rG
SamWhited: good point; it's important to the business customers
Ge0rG
I'm using MS Teams day-to-day, and its "federation" is just a cruel joke.
Ge0rG
And technically it's not even federation because it's all in the same clown.
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"
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
SamWhited
(or whatever the thing you're actually competing on is, I suspect email isn't a money maker for them either)
Neustradamus
Gaim is the old name of Pidgin
Jabber is the old name of XMPP
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.
moparisthebest
all big providers actively block 3rd parties from connecting, that's a non-starter
moparisthebest
you make it easy for them to install an app to talk to you
Ge0rG
SamWhited: vendor lock-in means that once you have a critical mass, federation is harmful to your growth
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
moparisthebest
you'll never get there
SamWhited
Ge0rG: not if it's only a value add and not your primary product (I think)
moparisthebest
I mean, it's a good goal, wouldn't hurt to try, I'd just bet money it wouldn't happen
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?"
Ge0rG
SamWhited: if it's only a value add, then it's a means to get people onto your vendor solution
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
moparisthebest
that's how you get people who hate crappy XMPP because pidgin+google talk sucked
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.
stp
Pidgin and Google Talk sucked? I think it was great at the time.
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.
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
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.
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
Zash
Pidgin and GTalk was probably great ... in 2006. And then it stayed mostly the same.
SamWhited
Good idea! I like that
moparisthebest
whether that's XSF logo or not no idea
Ge0rG
moparisthebest: ModernXMPP is even more cumbersome than XMPP
dwd
Ge0rG, Now there's a statement we can all get behind.
MattJ
moparisthebest, I agree with that sentiment, for sure
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.
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
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
jonas’
.oO(Snikket?)
dwd
A new logo that tesselated might be a fun thing.
moparisthebest
yes exactly what SamWhited said
Zash
Might be something to learn from "The Fediverse" aka ActivityPub/MastoPub
LNJhas joined
MattJ
ModernXMPP probably isn't the best term for users, but that can be solved
moparisthebest
I mean it'd be cool if xmpp.org could host the page too/instead but that seems more controversial :)
Ge0rG
SamWhited: let me remind you of XMPP Compliance Suite Compliance Badges.
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
I'd just like to mention this glorious logo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NROL_39_vector_logo.svg
SamWhited
oh man, the US military and intelligence agencies come up with awesome logos all the time
Ge0rG
maybe we need to hire a designer to make an awesome logo
Zash
Ge0rG, worked for Snikket
Ge0rG
if it has some pyramid-eye or kraken symbol, it will trigger the fediverse, and as we all know bad press = good press
Zash
all press is good press indeed
SamWhited
IDGI, is that some fedivserse conspiracy theory iconography?
Zash
just don't mention "the competition"
Ge0rG
Zash: the snikket logo is cute, not controversial
SamWhited
Actually, I probably don't want to know
Zash
Ge0rG, I mean the "hire a designer" part
Ge0rG
SamWhited: nah, it's just the usual conspiracy theory iconography
SamWhited
*sigh* okay, TIL. I do not need or want to know more.
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
Andrzejhas joined
dwd
SamWhited, But that's just what you *want* me to think, right?
SamWhited
dwd: how'd you know? Who's been talking?
dwd
SamWhited, https://xkcd.com/2169/
Zash
Everyone knows it, educate yourself!!!11!!eleven
SamWhited
classic
Zash
Obs: That was satire. Do not use in actual debates.
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 :)
MattJ
I think using the XSF logo would confuse matters too much :)
Ge0rG
Using the XSF logo for what exactly?
dwd
Ge0rG, Everything.
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
moparisthebest
the image+link to simple "explains why this is compatible to normal person" page
Ge0rG
SamWhited: I agree that the logo is actually good enough for that.
Zash
XMPP logo on top of a globe and the text "NOBODY IS BEYOND YOUR REACH"
Ge0rG
the logo, embedded into a catchy compliance badge
Ge0rG
Zash: and a kraken.
Ge0rG
can we put a pyramid with an eye into the bottom half of the "X"?
Zash
Kraken in the XMPP logo colors?
Ge0rG
Zash: yeah, or the fediverse rainbow. Your choice.
dwd
I am concerned that there is no discussion of Cthulu in our logo plans.
dwd
(Also amused that Kraken was, after all, a popular XMPP-to-anything transport gateway back in the day)
moparisthebest
this is why we need graphic-ly inclined people and not developers
vanitasvitae: just one minor nitpick. We need to be gender-neutral, so it should be "sister/brother/sibling"
vanitasvitae
Or given how dusty XMPP as a protocol is, simply its Ancestor
Ge0rG
XMPP: Supporting Zalgo since 1999 and Emoji since 2010.
Steve Killehas left
Steve Killehas joined
jonas’
/nick :robotface:
lorddavidiiihas left
papatutuwawahas left
ti_gj06has joined
matkorhas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
x51has joined
raghavgururajanhas left
alameyohas left
marchas left
marchas joined
sonnyhas left
Andrzejhas left
murabitohas left
raghavgururajanhas joined
Andrzejhas joined
lskdjfhas joined
murabitohas joined
marchas left
marchas joined
mukt2has joined
andyhas left
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
papatutuwawahas joined
peetah
emus: the translation is currently under review on linuxfr, and I hope it will be synced quite soone in the XSF github repo✎
peetah
emus: the translation is currently under review on linuxfr, and I hope it will be synced quite soon with the XSF github repo ✏
werdanhas joined
emus
Ah okay, thats good to know
emus
Thanks
mukt2has left
LNJhas left
andyhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
LNJhas joined
alacerhas joined
alacerhas left
marchas left
matkorhas joined
Dele Olajidehas left
Paganinihas left
nycohas left
edhelashas left
Neustradamushas left
marchas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
mukt2has joined
lskdjfhas left
Yagizahas left
edhelashas joined
Neustradamushas joined
raghavgururajanhas left
raghavgururajanhas joined
nycohas joined
Paganinihas joined
mukt2has left
lskdjfhas joined
mukt2has joined
LNJhas left
mukt2has left
LNJhas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
LNJhas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
LNJhas joined
Dele Olajidehas joined
j.rhas left
eevvoorhas left
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
j.rhas joined
fuanahas joined
Dele Olajidehas left
chronosx88has left
fuanahas left
waqashas joined
waqashas left
waqashas joined
waqashas left
waqashas joined
waqashas left
fuanahas joined
LNJhas left
chronosx88has joined
fuanahas left
LNJhas joined
fuanahas joined
fuanahas left
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
pasdesushihas joined
fuanahas joined
LNJhas left
LNJhas joined
fuanahas left
sonnyhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
pasdesushihas left
Andrzejhas left
Wojtekhas left
emus
Hello, I would like to arrange an official mail for the CommTeam. What would be the steps?
jonas’
emus, like in email address?
jonas’
I think that topic came up in the past
pasdesushihas joined
emus
Yes, but we stopped talking about it
jonas’
I’m trying to find the discussion
jonas’
I think we came to the conclusion that for the use case back then, it wasn’t necessary or useful
jonas’
what has changed on your side?
adiaholichas left
emus
several social network accounts with several private or non related mails
emus
An I would like to have a direct an clear address for the organisation etc.✎
emus
And I would like to have a direct an clear address for the organisation etc. ✏
j.rhas left
adiaholichas joined
flow
some orgs use private mailing lists for this
pasdesushihas left
pasdesushihas joined
Andrzejhas joined
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
ti_gj06has left
pasdesushihas left
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
MattJ
I don't know if we even have that capability currently
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.
MattJ
But I could be wrong, I haven't looked
jonas’
no IMAP
jonas’
port 143 timeouts
emus
members@xmpp.org so those are all only mail list adresses
MattJ
Yes
jonas’
yes, the contact addresses are all mailing lists
jonas’
which, if you think about it, has some advantages (you can easily add/remove people with access for example)
emus
Ok, then that confused me. So there is no official email for xsf etc?
jonas’
but you obviously cannot send messages from that address(*)
jonas’
emus, there is. I think there’s info@ and board@ and trademark@…
emus
Yes, and I cannot register with that
jonas’
though the latter may actually just be an alias for a single person
emus
Okay, but apart from capacities, I think it should be dealt with the account registrations and the XSF "sovereignty" on this
jonas’
running a mail server is not easy™
adiaholichas left
emus
Ok, I thought there is one running already
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
emus
SPOF?
jonas’
emus, partially. it only does inbound (SMTP) and mailing lists
jonas’
single point of failure
jonas’
it doesn’t do outbound (Submission) or mailboxes (IMAP)
emus
Yes - I see
andyhas left
jonas’
so while it is technically a mail server, it is not a full mail setup
moparisthebest
isn't that really all you need for registering/maintaining accounts though? (a mailing list, recieve-only) ?
jonas’
moparisthebest, in general, yes.
jonas’
but emus seems to have special requirements?
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)
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 ?
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
MattJ
As has already been suggested, a private mailing list will suffice for that
MattJ
That's how the info@xmpp.org contact address for the XSF works
moparisthebest
*hopefully* no website exists where you have to *send* an email to verify identity, because email doesn't work that way
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
emus
yes, what mopar says
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?
moparisthebest
emus, it's ok because you can fake the sender from any email account :)
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.
emus
No, thanks moparistthebest
Andrzejhas left
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
jonas’
emus, ftr, I’ve been registering on ~all services with one-way addreses for a few years now
emus
In terms of Single Points of Failures: I think that is an important topic if the infrastructure capabilities are low.
jonas’
after I built a thing which allows me to get a throwaway, one-way email address via an XMPP ad-hoc command ;)
emus
jonas' okay, then I do so
jonas’
emus, exactly, hence I propose we try to make do with what we have :)
emus
at least a way to have it collected
moparisthebest
emus, if a service EVER requires you SEND them an email, drop them, they are totally insecure and vulnerable to impersonation
emus
jonas', I see but I think even this is not good
moparisthebest
there is no way to validate an email you just recieved came from who you think sent it
matkorhas left
moparisthebest
email is not xmpp
moparisthebest
so, recieve-only is fine 100% of the time
SnowCodehas joined
emus
moparisthebest, I think maybe one day I (we) want to reach out to someone else via such an email.
SnowCodehas left
moparisthebest
1. anyone can fake such an email right now 2. don't, just use it for twitter password resets
adiaholichas joined
emus
I hope so. I think as a commteam... one wants to be able to send an email or provide this contact 🤷♂️️
emus
Okay, wait, I cannot use it as account email?
mukt2has joined
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)
emus
No, Im on what jonas' suggested
emus
no maillist (at least for now)
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
moparisthebest
I thought jonas’ suggested a mailing list ?
emus
He suggested a receiving email only
emus
(I think)
jonas’
emus, in case of the XSF infrastructure using a mailing list
emus
But I thought I cannot use this for account reference?
jonas’
why not?
emus
Because any response to this is public I thought?
jonas’
response?
jonas’
you can also have mailing lists which are not (publicly) archived
jonas’
and which are essentially just forwarders to one or more other email addresses
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
emus
If I place this email to the XSF Fosstodon account, any they send any password or private stuff, then its public
jonas’
no
jonas’
just don’t enable (public) archives for the list, done.
j.rhas joined
emus
Okay, but there is still a non public archive for XSF responsibles?
emus
like, if you want to review a year later
jonas’
depends on the configuration
jonas’
you can have a public archive, a members only archive, or no archive at all
deuillhas left
emus
Would member only be legit for that purpose
emus
?
moparisthebest
seems perfect for it
jonas’
yep, I agree
deuillhas joined
emus
Then I would like to request such a list
emus
Should be better commteam_internal@xmpp.org
jonas’
I’ll see what I can do
emus
Okay, take your time of course
mukt2has left
pasdesushihas joined
deuillhas left
deuillhas joined
emus
But generally asking do we have real known Single Point of Failure?
pasdesushihas left
moparisthebest
plenty
moparisthebest
also depends what you mean by "we"
LNJhas left
emus
XSF
LNJhas joined
moparisthebest
but, xmpp.org infrastructure-wise, or organization-wise, or this-muc-wise, or?
mukt2has joined
emus
XSF-wise, all critical points
adiaholichas left
lskdjfhas left
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
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