XSF Discussion - 2021-05-30

İs local messaging is sms?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-UlA4-tslROBDS9IqHalWVztqZo7uxlCeKPQ-8uoFOU/htmlview İn this page local message and FIDO1 / U2F is false

What these are

E2e is partial but this is not issue. Some clients are not support e2e, np.

Even Matrix partial

You should ask the Person that created that spreadsheet. Why does it even concern you? But I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with SMS

My suggestion: Instead of reading every data randomly you find, ask what it *your* usecase and only then look for answers about that.

For example?

😀 think for yourself

My goal is to be open source and ip is not exposed

Only goal? Have you looked at p2p messengers? Otherwise you can get that with xmpp+tor.

I use xmpp+tor, pretty good

P2p good but only android

I'm curious ✏

Notice this is not a room for general discussion of alternative messengers. You can find those here: https://search.jabber.network/rooms/1

Thanks

U2F is usb password enter tool, Something extra. No problem

XMPP is very good, ı like it

In Matrix for once, no matter what, ip stays open. But in the XMPP ip always hidden

?

:(

My english is bad

I mean XMPP clients has got tor option but Matrix hasnt got

you want xmpp+freenet

tor can be banned

Why?

Freenet mobile (Access Freenet from the palm of your hand) - https://f-droid.org/packages/org.freenetproject.mobile İs this?

I hope the add-on comes if it's banned

Doesn't start until you pass with an freenet ✏

yes freenet is much less single point of failure ✏

it is p2p so no single server to take down

Why tor is banned?

in some countries it is

Np

I will use riseup and tor

riseup's xmpp service is going away

Or I could use a bridge.

This option is better

Hi. Is it possible to change a publish-options? When I understand well, the creation of a pubsub will fail <precondition-not-met/>, if the node exists with another value of the given option.

You can change those settings by configuring the node: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0060.html#owner-configure

ah, thx.

do we have a "default" port for direct tls s2s connections?

larma: officially no, unofficially I use 443

yeah, there is also some that use 443 for c2s, but we do have unofficial, but widely known 5223 for direct tls c2s

so 5263 it is

https://github.com/moparisthebest/xmpp-proxy/blob/master/src/srv.rs#L122

I use 443 for default for both c2s and s2s direct TLS

It's got multiplexing built in, no reason to do multiple ports like some type of pre millennium neanderthal

multiplexing can also be done by a proxy that runs before if people do that. many people actually run their nginx on port 443...

That's fine, then you move on to the next port

Nginx handles multiplexing on alpn too by the way

moparisthebest, sure, but then which port to run the xmpp server on? Also, why multiplex on the user space when you can do it on kernel space? TCP port numbers are meant to be used for multiplexing already...

would be great if we can have servers opportunistically connect to a port to try if a direct tls xmpp server is running there, just like we allow for starttls

and 443 certainly is not that port, because that's going to be a non-alpn aware https server for 99% of the hosts