Slashdot Mirror

XMPP is pretty wasteful, bandwidth wise. Thats why there is JEP-0138: Stream Compression. But the question still is: are there mobile IMs that have implemented JEP-0138 already?

People, live with it. There are BILLIONS of text messages exchanged and there are hundreds of thousands of Agile Messenger "subscribers".

Real alerting thing is, there is no mention of "Jabber" (XMPP) in the article. No word at http://www.jabber.com/ or http://www.jabber.org/ too.

We are speaking about huge GSM companies here. One must start a petition, send some "people" to these companies IMMEDIATELY.

FYI, XMPP is the _official_ protocol of Internet 2. http://www.internet2.edu/

Enough with "I am so cool, who uses cell phone" attitude.

Sockets may be direct (peer-to-peer) or mediated (established through a bytestreaming service)
...
Proxy - A Jabber entity which is not NAT/Firewalled and is willing to be a middleman for the bytestream between the Initiator and the Target

Sockets may be direct (peer-to-peer) or mediated (established through a bytestreaming service)
...
Proxy - A Jabber entity which is not NAT/Firewalled and is willing to be a middleman for the bytestream between the Initiator and the Target

Programming Jabber
Publisher: O'Reilly Media, Inc.; 1st edition (January 1, 2002)

RFC 3923 (s/mime) is dated october 2004 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3923.txt)
version 0.1 (current=0.9) of JEP 116 (Encrypted Sessions) is dated 2003-09-09 (http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0116.html)

JEP 27 (current openPGP usage) version 0.1 is dated 2002-03-12 (http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0027.html)
The basic XMPP RFC (3920) (inc. TLS) says the XMPP WG was founded in 2002. (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3920.txt)

So the book might include some info on OpenPGP and TLS, but not on S/MIME or Encrypted Sessions.
It also would not include a lot of other good stuff like Personal Eventing Protocol (PEP, AKA Simplified PubSub), anti-SPIM methods, Jingle Audio, the current method of File Transfer, etc.

So yeah, you might want to wait for a new edition or just use online resources

http://planet.jabber.org/
http://www.jabber.org/developer/
http://wiki.jabber.org/index.php/Main_Page
http://www.jabber.org/jeps/

Programming Jabber
Publisher: O'Reilly Media, Inc.; 1st edition (January 1, 2002)

RFC 3923 (s/mime) is dated october 2004 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3923.txt)
version 0.1 (current=0.9) of JEP 116 (Encrypted Sessions) is dated 2003-09-09 (http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0116.html)

JEP 27 (current openPGP usage) version 0.1 is dated 2002-03-12 (http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0027.html)
The basic XMPP RFC (3920) (inc. TLS) says the XMPP WG was founded in 2002. (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3920.txt)

So the book might include some info on OpenPGP and TLS, but not on S/MIME or Encrypted Sessions.
It also would not include a lot of other good stuff like Personal Eventing Protocol (PEP, AKA Simplified PubSub), anti-SPIM methods, Jingle Audio, the current method of File Transfer, etc.

So yeah, you might want to wait for a new edition or just use online resources

http://planet.jabber.org/
http://www.jabber.org/developer/
http://wiki.jabber.org/index.php/Main_Page
http://www.jabber.org/jeps/

Programming Jabber
Publisher: O'Reilly Media, Inc.; 1st edition (January 1, 2002)

RFC 3923 (s/mime) is dated october 2004 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3923.txt)
version 0.1 (current=0.9) of JEP 116 (Encrypted Sessions) is dated 2003-09-09 (http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0116.html)

JEP 27 (current openPGP usage) version 0.1 is dated 2002-03-12 (http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0027.html)
The basic XMPP RFC (3920) (inc. TLS) says the XMPP WG was founded in 2002. (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3920.txt)

So the book might include some info on OpenPGP and TLS, but not on S/MIME or Encrypted Sessions.
It also would not include a lot of other good stuff like Personal Eventing Protocol (PEP, AKA Simplified PubSub), anti-SPIM methods, Jingle Audio, the current method of File Transfer, etc.

So yeah, you might want to wait for a new edition or just use online resources

http://planet.jabber.org/
http://www.jabber.org/developer/
http://wiki.jabber.org/index.php/Main_Page
http://www.jabber.org/jeps/

Programming Jabber
Publisher: O'Reilly Media, Inc.; 1st edition (January 1, 2002)

RFC 3923 (s/mime) is dated october 2004 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3923.txt)
version 0.1 (current=0.9) of JEP 116 (Encrypted Sessions) is dated 2003-09-09 (http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0116.html)

JEP 27 (current openPGP usage) version 0.1 is dated 2002-03-12 (http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0027.html)
The basic XMPP RFC (3920) (inc. TLS) says the XMPP WG was founded in 2002. (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3920.txt)

So the book might include some info on OpenPGP and TLS, but not on S/MIME or Encrypted Sessions.
It also would not include a lot of other good stuff like Personal Eventing Protocol (PEP, AKA Simplified PubSub), anti-SPIM methods, Jingle Audio, the current method of File Transfer, etc.

So yeah, you might want to wait for a new edition or just use online resources

http://planet.jabber.org/
http://www.jabber.org/developer/
http://wiki.jabber.org/index.php/Main_Page
http://www.jabber.org/jeps/

Programming Jabber
Publisher: O'Reilly Media, Inc.; 1st edition (January 1, 2002)

RFC 3923 (s/mime) is dated october 2004 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3923.txt)
version 0.1 (current=0.9) of JEP 116 (Encrypted Sessions) is dated 2003-09-09 (http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0116.html)

JEP 27 (current openPGP usage) version 0.1 is dated 2002-03-12 (http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0027.html)
The basic XMPP RFC (3920) (inc. TLS) says the XMPP WG was founded in 2002. (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3920.txt)

So the book might include some info on OpenPGP and TLS, but not on S/MIME or Encrypted Sessions.
It also would not include a lot of other good stuff like Personal Eventing Protocol (PEP, AKA Simplified PubSub), anti-SPIM methods, Jingle Audio, the current method of File Transfer, etc.

So yeah, you might want to wait for a new edition or just use online resources

http://planet.jabber.org/
http://www.jabber.org/developer/
http://wiki.jabber.org/index.php/Main_Page
http://www.jabber.org/jeps/

Programming Jabber
Publisher: O'Reilly Media, Inc.; 1st edition (January 1, 2002)

RFC 3923 (s/mime) is dated october 2004 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3923.txt)
version 0.1 (current=0.9) of JEP 116 (Encrypted Sessions) is dated 2003-09-09 (http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0116.html)

JEP 27 (current openPGP usage) version 0.1 is dated 2002-03-12 (http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0027.html)
The basic XMPP RFC (3920) (inc. TLS) says the XMPP WG was founded in 2002. (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3920.txt)

So the book might include some info on OpenPGP and TLS, but not on S/MIME or Encrypted Sessions.
It also would not include a lot of other good stuff like Personal Eventing Protocol (PEP, AKA Simplified PubSub), anti-SPIM methods, Jingle Audio, the current method of File Transfer, etc.

So yeah, you might want to wait for a new edition or just use online resources

http://planet.jabber.org/
http://www.jabber.org/developer/
http://wiki.jabber.org/index.php/Main_Page
http://www.jabber.org/jeps/

The XMPP RFC describes the useage of SASL and TLS:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3920.txt
TLS can be used on client-sever connections and on sever-server connections.

JEP 27 describes the useage of OpenPGP for encryption:
http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0027.html

RFC 3923 describes S/MIME useage:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3923.txt

JEP 116 describes Encrypted Sessions, which seems to be somewhat reminiscent of SSH:
http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0116.html
I don't know that anyone implements this yet.

BTW Can someone tell me whether the connection between the two people chatting with Jabber is P2P or whether it is routed via the server?

Normal chatting at least is all client-server. File transfer can be p2p (normal case) or client-server, while Jingle Audio is p2p.

The XMPP RFC describes the useage of SASL and TLS:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3920.txt
TLS can be used on client-sever connections and on sever-server connections.

JEP 27 describes the useage of OpenPGP for encryption:
http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0027.html

RFC 3923 describes S/MIME useage:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3923.txt

JEP 116 describes Encrypted Sessions, which seems to be somewhat reminiscent of SSH:
http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0116.html
I don't know that anyone implements this yet.

BTW Can someone tell me whether the connection between the two people chatting with Jabber is P2P or whether it is routed via the server?

Normal chatting at least is all client-server. File transfer can be p2p (normal case) or client-server, while Jingle Audio is p2p.

Been Jabber, done that...

Seriously, why wouldn't a company want a secure flexible internal IM system, for free, instead of an expensive proprietary system?

My prediction is that XHTML 2.0 will more likely establish itself first in scenarios other than the classic web (and Web 2.0, for that matter). Now, whenever an XML application designer has a need to spec "rich text"-like embedded payloads, they consider XHTML as the most natural candidate. Look at this XMPP extension proposal for an example. The modular nature of XHTML 2.0 adds versatility: you can lock down your next-gen instant p2p hyperblog protocol to use a safer and saner subset of XHTML and have schemas at hand to verify it.

Actually it's jep-0153: http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0153.html

Sorry, photo in vCard is not the standard for avatars. In fact, there is no standard for avatars. (There are about three different "historical" JEPs for avatars.) In fact, vCard was only a temporary measure (temporary for the last five years), and this is going to be replaced.

>(*cough* ursine.ca *cough*)

No need to cough :)

Jabber.org is running a list of public servers, most of which provide a number of gateways to other networks. If you can't get a particular gateway on, say, jabber.org, try to use any of those.

Note that you can have an account on one server and use gateways on other server(s).

Isn't this JEP about exactly such buddy icons?

there are a few jeps about avatars out...
http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0008.html http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0084.html http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0153.html - used by many clients but jep says its historical and should not be implemented (Shameless plug: I use it on my jabber server, prolly.org)

I just want to know if google is using the experimental one or jep-0153. (jep-0008 really shouldn't be used)

Buddy Icons is http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0084.html and is probably almost ready for public usage, if it is enabled on that CES-demo version.

If google decide to enable transports for AIM (and msn and icq and irc) got nothing to do with this.

Oh yea should of included this link, http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/2005-August/ 021792.html

Jabber originally tried to create a protocol (TINS) that would be a light wrapper around SIP. Google looked at it for their voice chat, at first, but found problems with it, and came up with their own protocol instead. You can look at Peter Saint Andre's blog for more history on Jingle.

Using XMPP also allows the use of transports, which will allow Jabber to connect to SIP and IAX networks, as well as supporting voice connections with MSN, Yahoo, etc.

If you read the Jabber.org press release, you'll see that Digium, the main sponsor of Asterisk, has pledged support for Jingle.

re: NAT, Jabber already has a specification (JEP-0065) for bytestream proxying. My guess is that's what will be used to get around NAT.

As noted, the mechanism referred to is for presence (status), not chat messages but the Jabber Software Foundation are already trying to address the issues of spam on im before they become an issue for the Jabber/XMPP community. Robot Challenges, SPIM Blocking Control and SPIM Reporting are three such approaches.

As noted, the mechanism referred to is for presence (status), not chat messages but the Jabber Software Foundation are already trying to address the issues of spam on im before they become an issue for the Jabber/XMPP community. Robot Challenges, SPIM Blocking Control and SPIM Reporting are three such approaches.

As noted, the mechanism referred to is for presence (status), not chat messages but the Jabber Software Foundation are already trying to address the issues of spam on im before they become an issue for the Jabber/XMPP community. Robot Challenges, SPIM Blocking Control and SPIM Reporting are three such approaches.

As noted, the mechanism referred to is for presence (status), not chat messages but the Jabber Software Foundation are already trying to address the issues of spam on im before they become an issue for the Jabber/XMPP community. Robot Challenges, SPIM Blocking Control and SPIM Reporting are three such approaches.

Are you saying that Google doesn't have a "accept messages only from people on my contact list" option?!

This is a welcome message from the jabber.org server, and maybe even your first Jabber message. For up-to-date information about this server, go to http://status.jabber.org/. For a good introduction to Jabber, read the Jabber User's Guide at http://www.jabber.org/user/userguide/. Please DO NOT reply to this message. Happy Jabbering!

This is a welcome message from the jabber.org server, and maybe even your first Jabber message. For up-to-date information about this server, go to http://status.jabber.org/. For a good introduction to Jabber, read the Jabber User's Guide at http://www.jabber.org/user/userguide/. Please DO NOT reply to this message. Happy Jabbering!

Why not stop bitching about it and use something better

Please allow one hour if your TiVo is connected to broadband

Polling once an hour is a solution from the 80s. With a bit of smarts you can have instant access even if TiVo box is behind a router or firewall. One of the ways is to use Jabber http://www.jabber.org/ or similar solutions.

If only such a thing existed; something with multiple client and server implementations.

If only such a thing existed; something with multiple client and server implementations.

If only such a thing existed; something with multiple client and server implementations.

It's not hard if you look. Don't sweat finding one in your area.

And that means redundant servers housed in datacenters, not a box in somebody's basement connected to their cable modem.

Apparently you forgot about Google.

BZZT! Wrong! If you hate ads as much as you do, use an alternative: Not AIM, not MSN, not Yahoo, not ICQ. Jabber.

Jabber is the way to go. It's open, scalable, distributed and simple.

The problem are social connections. People are on MSN because their friends are on MSN. Same for Yahoo!

But who from your contact list/roster, in the first place, came on MSN or Yahoo!? Well, users who were advertised by their Yahoo! account or using the MSN client being shipped with Windows. Compare to "Who made you join ICQ, or IRC". No ads, only because it was the way to go, because some computer techies back then told you it was great (well, it WAS indeed).

Slashdot crowd and others, being [...] computer and technologies aware, should be the first link in each of our own socials network to tell others to go Jabber. Non-techie people should trust us on the technical side: Jabber is way better designed than others major IMs services. The Jabber community, for now, is mainly composed of geeks and free software hobbyists. Let's tell our friends to make the switch. It's a little time consumming the first time, but it's free. Tell them to use GTalk (which should be openly federating soon, even with some restrictions to avoid 'spim'..) or any other Jabber server.

There are tons of great clients for Jabber. Under GNU/Linux, you may try Gajim, Tkabber, Gaim or Psi. Under Mac OS X, Gush, Psi or of course iChat. And for those still under Windows, Miranda, Exodus, Gaim or Psi. Google for them.

And they will soon ALL support the feature you want, just give it some time More info

jabber

Suppose it would be really great to have a single generic protocol for instant messaging, but if there will be no dictator like Microsoft behind it. This system should be distributed and with opened specifications (as Jabber/XMPP). Clients for it's network should be exist for various platforms, not only for win32 and mac. The ability for running own server is also important.

Alright...everyone who hasn't already, go out and setup a Jabber account now!

Still, if they open up the ability to extend MSN Messenger, maybe someone can go and add support for a better protocol.

What are you babbling on about!

"Open Office was perfectly free to make their own document format"

In a way they did. OpenOffice.org 1.x has it's own XML based format, which was offered to OASIS as the starting point from which the OpenDocument Format was derived. This has since (AFAIK) superseded the original format for OpenOffice.org 2.x.

"but everyone know the standard is the Word 2000 format"

A widely used format - yes, proprietary standard - yes. An open standard - no. If it was I would be able to get a specification on how to interpret the contents of a .doc file. If this was the case, opensource projects would not have to reverse engineer the file format. If anything OpenDocument is the closest thing to a true standard, even if it isn't as widely used as words format.

"Since the word 2000 format isn't encumbered by copyright or patent"

Any Microsoft internal documents describing the file format (if they exist) will definitely be copyrighted, as will any code that has been written by them to write, read data from the format. Unless it is explicitly placed in the public domain code is copyrighted. The format cannot be explicitly copyrighted as such, though portions of it may be protected by patents. Whether these patents are enforced/owned by Microsoft is a different matter. It could however be classed as a trade secret.

every other companie(sic) that does word processing has found a way to output to .doc

Yes - it's called interoperatability, 20th century style.

It is effectively an open standard.

No, it's a proprietary standard that is widely used. This is not the same as an open standard

"Compare and contrast with AOL instant messenger" Blah, blah, blah

I can't see much of a contrast. Both are proprietary standards that have been reversed engineered by some and possibly others have paid AOL/microsoft to provide them with specs. Both parties change there format/protocol which, whether on purpose or not, breaks interoperatability with those that reverse engineered the protocol. Neither to my knowledge has published there protocols/formats as a standard. As for IM hell, if you want to talk to people using different IMs thats the price you have to pay. Either that or pick one and try and get other people to use it, preferably an open standard such as jabber.

"Standards are easy, as long as everyone is free to implement the proprietary formats of everyone else."

Unfortunately in the real world companies tend to want to keep there proprietary formats secret to lock people into their software. Generally the only way of getting at these formats is through reverse engineering, which takes time, skill and is done by trial and error.

"Markets get to set them and enforce them, but everyone gets to benefit from them."

Nice fiction. People create formats, an open market may or may not eventually converge on a format. It may just remain with a number of competing formats much to the annoyance of everyone just trying to share data. Companies try to get as many people as possible using their formats as it increases their revenue. The companies/groups with the most widely used formats benefit. Others benefit from using these formats as they can share data. Others who use other formats or unable to use them, for many reasons, loose out. Not everyone gets to benefit from them. Not everyone gets to benefit from open standards, but they attempt to increase the percentage of people that can benefit from them.

For the time being, Google is the only one hosting such servers

Not even close. My web hosting company, for example, provides Jabber with all service levels. Why have a Jabber ID of user@gmail.com when you can have user@your-own-domain? Needless to say, they also support S2S.

I was hoping that Google Talk would be the thing to get some people to start moving away from AIM to Jabber. As it stands though, Google Talk is no better than AIM or any other propietary IM network.

If you really want to use your primary email to chat, then tell your ISP to join up.

Also note that an e-mail address is not an inherent requirement to use Jabber. It may be required by the operator of the Jabber server you want to use, but there's no reason one couldn't get Jabber service from a provider they otherwise have nothing to do with. See the open server list at Jabber.org.

That's assuming it's even necessary to buy out Jabber. Likely, they'd just buy Jabber's server product, if the open-source server wasn't powerful enough to handle Google Talk's load. So they'd be Jabber Inc. customers, but not necessarily owners.

By the way, open-source Jabber development does not fall under Jabber Inc., but under the Jabber Software Foundation. Jabber Inc. sponsors the foundation and employs many of the core developers, though.

(disclaimer: somewhere in the back of my closet, I have old boxes of business cards from both Webb Interactive and Jabber, with my name on them)

Even if you trusted Google, TLS might not be present on server-to-server communication if you're talking to a person on another jabber server (and you'd have to trust that server as well) or the other user might not be using TLS when talking to their server.

Um. Jabber is a full fledged messaging program.

Wrong. Jabber is a instant messaging protocol (a great one, by the way). If you are talking about the chat application, then you should call it a jabber client.

For more information check out jabber's site

Virtual presence on Web pages (also sometimes known as co-browsing, while co-browsing can also mean something different) makes people aware of each other, who are at the same Web location at the same time. The basic purpose of a virtual presence system is to show names, icons, and/or avatars of people who are on a page or a set of pages and to let them communicate.

Personally i take all of this Google "thing" (*paranoid*) with some doubts, the concentration of information (a LOT of personal data) never will be good.

I use Jabber(i use it from centericq, imcom, Gaim, kopete, among others) for a long time ago, and i REALLY try to all my friends start using it, but they still use the (lack of "geek" features and stability) MSN Messenger. I really wait the Google IM program, becouse jabber exist for some time ago, and IMHO doesnt have ANY reason to use the Google servers. The good thing of this news is that maybe with the Google IM all my friends (and everybody) start using a FREE IM protocol (i say that for Jabber)