Gajim - 2015-05-27


  1. Nathan Well, with the
  2. Nathan Oops
  3. Nathan *Well, with the 'better' argument, you could just as well tell people to use anything that isn't XMPP because chances are it'll actually be better than XMPP
  4. bot RSS: Feeds for Gajim • Ticket #8055 (Crashes when non-latin1 Unicode character arrives) created Bug description When non-latin1 Unicode characters arrive in a stanza, gajim crashes. Steps to reproduce 1) When a "…" arrives in a status stanza, gajim crashes with this message: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/nbxmpp/dispatcher_nb.py", line 497, in dispatch handler['func'](session, stanza) File "/usr/share/gajim/src/common/connecti[…] https://trac.gajim.org/ticke[…]
  5. Darlan Nathan, the best argument for XMPP is that it does most, if not everything, users want and because there are many XMPP servers available, and anyone can host an own XMPP server, users will not be subjected to non-voluntary dramatic changes.
  6. Darlan "It may appear that these IM services are being provided free of cost," [...] "But our data is being locked into these services. Imagine the problems we would face if one day [the proprietary services] would coolly declare IM to be a paid service. All our contacts will be locked in, and it would be impossible to get all the contacts back in again on another free service. We will have to pay up, whatever the cost may be to get uninterrupted service." http://archive09.linux.com/feature/23890
  7. Darlan Someone has to pay for the servers, but the quote above is, by my opinion, the best argument to persuade most of the people to adopt XMPP by using free and unlocked XMPP servers.
  8. Nathan Darlan: - XMPP does not require encryption and none of the optional encryption methods really work (no one uses GPG and no one ever will because it's needlessly complicated, and OTR only works if you're both online, you have a perfect connection, you don't use more than one device or client, your server has perfect uptime, the stars align in your favour, ...) - sending a file is quite literally impossible so you have to upload everything you want to share somewhere else first (the entire idea that you even need to approve every single file transfer even if it's coming from your contacts is ludicrous, if you don't want people to send you files you don't want, don't add them to your contacts in the first place), which pretty much defeats the point of chatting because I'd imagine 50% of chats are simply sending funny pictures or files to your friends and you could just send those via email instead, where attachments actually work. No encryption in email either, but at least there you can be sure that when you send someone a file, they'll receive it, without having to jump through hoops to even accept or acknowledge an attempt at transferring files is being made. - group chats are absolutely terrible, they're made to function like IRC chats except they have none of the benefits and all of the downsides, and there's no way of using any encryption in group chats (again because no one uses GPG and no one ever will) - the only way to get a remotely modern, well-working XMPP chat experience is by using a server whose owner is constantly busy updating it with the latest unstable and experimental features, which limits the amount of servers you can use to a handful, which in turn is not particularly beneficial for the decentralisation. Sure, hosting your own XMPP server is possible, but be honest, no end user is ever going to set up their own server, it's a fair amount of work and it costs quite a bit. If these problems can't be overcome, XMPP will never be a viable alternative to other services. Unfortunately, freedom is not a good argument for many people, as the constant outrageous revelations about spying since two years ago has shown. People haven't stopped using Facebook, Google, Whatsapp, in fact there are even more people using it now. But I think the argument that XMPP is gratis is nonsense anyway, someone has to pay for the servers, and just like proprietary services, the owner of an XMPP server can suddenly decide to make their server paid-only. Even better, they can read all your chats and sell the information in those chats (or just sell the chats) because none of them are encrypted due the to the massive problems with encryption mentioned above. And good luck getting your contacts from your now-locked XMPP provider.
  9. Link Mauve Nathan, your second point is purely a client UI issue, I’m sure there are clients out there that automatically accept file transfers.
  10. Link Mauve And it works.
  11. Link Mauve For the first one, you mean end-to-end encryption, because the rest of the communications is clearly encrypted almost everywhere.
  12. Link Mauve For group chat, there is some effort currently to achieve something better, if you have something to add it’d be useful to contact the MUC2 working group.
  13. Link Mauve And hosting yourself is simple, it’s the mentality that they can’t do anything involving computers that is preventing users from doing that, nothing else.
  14. SouL The webpage says connection untrusted.
  15. SouL I don't have a problem, buy maybe new users˙
  16. SouL btw, is possible to make audio/vide conferences using Windows?
  17. pep. I heard it was possible a few months ago, but among the few tries I did none were successful
  18. SouL I would like to recommend to some people Gajim but they use Windows and they want this feature so…
  19. Darlan As far as I know, you can perform VoIP calls with audio only under Windows.
  20. Darlan Brasero has a dynamic task bar icon. Perhaps Gajim should display the same Status icon displayed on its combo-box, already.
  21. Nathan Link Mauve: sure, but the only client I know which allows to automatically accept file transfers is Conversations on Android.
  22. Link Mauve I don’t think it’d be hard to add to any other client, tbh.
  23. Link Mauve The only issue would be a security one, that you’d need to expose to the user if you care about them.
  24. Nathan Besides, people don't think of XMPP as a protocol like email (in fact they don't think of email as a protocol either), they think of separate clients (just like they think the web interface to their hotmail or gmail account is 'their email').
  25. Link Mauve Yes, that is true.
  26. Nathan I don't think there's a security issue if you don't allow messages from outside your contacts and don't add strangers to your contacts.
  27. Link Mauve I have too many strangers in my contacts. ^^'
  28. Link Mauve And both of your arguments are contradictory, I do want to receive messages from the outside so that I don’t have to add everyone to my roster.
  29. pep. That's a client issue indeed. Maybe you would want some configuration for that, but personally I would never set it to true
  30. Link Mauve Same here, except for small images maybe, but that’s covered already by 231.
  31. Nathan Strange, I'd never accept anything that doesn't come from my contacts, because if there was a reason for them to send me messages and I would want to receive those messages, they'd be in my contacts, and if they weren't in my contacts, chances are whatever they sent me wasn't very important (and I'd be curious how they got my account name in the first place). These are probably just different use cases, but I think the way I use it is more in line with the way people use Facebook or Whatsapp.
  32. SouL But… You only read emails from people you know? It's like, if I want to get in touch with you, how can I make it happen if I don't know you?
  33. pep. Apparently you don't :d
  34. Nathan Receiving an email from someone you don't know is just like receiving a regular letter, but receiving messages from a stranger through XMPP is more like receiving SMS messages from an unknown number.
  35. Nathan Maybe the idea could be to automatically accept file transfers from contacts, but ask for confirmation if it's coming from someone outside your contacts.
  36. Link Mauve I don’t know how people usually do it, but it’s often that I will message a specific person, be it from a MUC or with their public JID, about stuff I want to tell them.
  37. Link Mauve It happens that we end up adding each other to our roster, but usually not on my initiative.
  38. Link Mauve And sometimes I do want to send a file to someone like that, for example a patch, and then I will host it on my server and give them the link because I can, but having file transfer would be better imo.
  39. Link Mauve I don’t know them, there is no reason for them to be in my roster, but I still want to give them something, to exchange with them, for whichever reason.
  40. arcade I'll rant about Facebook again.
  41. arcade Actually I found another guys who provide jabber gateway: Slack.
  42. arcade I'ts not a fully packed jabber server but gajim mostly doesn't work with it as is can't get roster. The was with Facebook - everything would work for me from the moment the roster goes online.
  43. arcade This is not a question about connecting to jabber servers, this is a question on whether gajim would support jabber gateways, services with minimal jabber coverage intended to provide access for other clients, unsupported platforms and so.
  44. arcade Both Facebook and Slack gateways are usable from PSI.
  45. Link Mauve arcade, so the issue would be when the server doesn’t support roster?
  46. Link Mauve “If the server cannot process the roster get, it MUST return an appropriate stanza error as described in [XMPP‑CORE] (such as <service-unavailable/> if the roster namespace is not supported or <internal-server-error/> if the server experiences trouble processing or returning the roster).”
  47. Link Mauve Is that the answer you are getting, arcade?
  48. arcade lemme check
  49. arcade no... I see in log that gajim connects, TLS, auth, but nothing about roster
  50. Link Mauve Err, any entity MUST answer to iq stanzas, be it with a result or with an error, not doing so is breaking RFC 6120.
  51. arcade what I see: jabber:client, get, urn:xmpp:archive -> error 501, feature-not-implemented xmlns='urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-stanzas'
  52. Link Mauve So Gajim is waiting on that iq answer, forever.
  53. Link Mauve It’s jabber:iq:roster which is of interest here.
  54. arcade not in log
  55. Link Mauve So Gajim is having an issue before actually requesting the roster.
  56. Link Mauve Could you paste an anonymized (or not, up to you) log of that connection?
  57. arcade the first error is about archive, then successfull disco request, then error 501 on jabber:iq:privacy
  58. arcade moment
  59. Link Mauve Errors should be ok, it’s alright for a server to not support archive or privacy.
  60. arcade paste where? some.paste.site?
  61. arcade https://paste.gajim.org/view/dbd3ea54
  62. arcade other probable problem is jabber:iq:private request - server says nothing about it
  63. Link Mauve You can paste it here, there is an auto-pastebin enabled.
  64. Link Mauve Yes, it seems to be the private archive that’s the issue. :/
  65. Link Mauve The server MUST answer with an error if it doesn’t support that.
  66. Link Mauve My guess is that Psi doesn’t try to retrieve it, so it doesn’t get blocked on that violation of the spec.
  67. arcade PSI just binds and asks for roster
  68. Link Mauve It makes sense to ask for metacontacts before the roster, so that you have one less reflow required to draw it.
  69. Link Mauve As you already know who has to be grouped with who.
  70. SamWhited Anyone know off the top of their head if there's an option to never show join/parts (or 1-1 status changes)? I thought I remembered there being a setting in the config editor for this, but I don't see it.
  71. Link Mauve I can’t find one in $XDG_CONFIG_HOME/gajim/config :/
  72. SamWhited yah, maybe I just dreamed that this was an option... I could swear my personal laptop doesn't display them, but maybe I imagined that too... on the work laptop at the moment so I can't check. Oh well.
  73. Asterix SamWhited: print_status_in_chats
  74. Asterix or _in_muc
  75. SamWhited Asterix: Aha! Thanks; I knew I'd seen that in there before.