[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: $user::user->Tell_Async ((was Re: [DotGNU]Why DotGNU should go Jabbe
Re: $user::user->Tell_Async ((was Re: [DotGNU]Why DotGNU should go Jabber
Thu, 28 Feb 2002 19:58:25 +0530
> > hypertext over e-mail does this quite nicely
> may be an "MX" DNS record which causes all email for
> Now imagine a company-wide policy that all incoming email must
> first go through a spam filter and/or virus scanner or whatever
I think most company SMTP servers add stuff outside the X-headers.
Like an attatchment "this document contains no virus -- AMavis" . This
could foul up all our tech. Sending human readable data is not
DotGNU (or .NET), we have to send machine parsable data which
should be "used" in some way to produce human readable output.
> all kinds of services piggy-back on HTTP: Many corporate
> firewalls will allow that to go through. Instead of using email
> for asynchronous message transmission, we could use HTTP POST...
Hey all of you, "How does SMTP work ?". Polling for mails right ?
So why not put in a similar mechanism for polling over HTTP-XMLRPC.
Like a POLL for recent messages, AFAIK Yahoo Messenger Protocol uses
this over my college's Squid proxy for offline messages.
I think we should ask the PHPGW guys more about this. [they're the
http-webservice guys, right ?].
> Actually I'm looking for a channel that supports both
> synchronous and asynchronous responses. When I send a request
There are so many people violating RFCs that I can't imagine
the advantage a MX-free , XML-based, Presence oriented protocol
for DotGNU. I think Jabber is just perfect for our stuff. Let's
not wait for MS to mislead us.
> Firmly agreed. Such an abstraction layer is
> important... especially since we don't really know yet what
> protocol will become the dominant standard.
"Abstraction is selective ignorance". Yeah ! it makes ignorant
people select programmings platform ;-). And I want DotGNU to be
> > Developing Towards Donating To The .GNU Project, to using an
It might just be that I'm quite redundant, but please avoid
referring "DotGNU" as ".GNU". ".GNU" is reserved for the file-
> > I guess I'm asking, could someone restate what the advantages of jabber
> > messaging over SMTP are, again, and how would they appear in an application
> > programmer's interface to a hypothetical user::Tell_Async method?
+-- XML-based -- XSL transforms
+-- Presence oriented protocol
+-- PUSH possible (next generation spam ?)
+-- Ideal for XML data
`-- No filtering/antivirus scanners (is that a pro ?)
`---we should write our own ?
Can it tunnel a firewall through 443 ? (I don't know)
Major Con -- Jabber Server Licensing !.
SMTP can be spammed with an open SMTP relay. SMTP is blocked in most
corporates (anyone remember why HoTMaiL came up ?), Extra headers/
attachments , Worm Ddos attacks etc. Also I remember the time when
my ISP went through an MX change and my postfix went haywire....
> The webservice server would be the Jabber server.
Licensing ? (seems like /me keeps on striking this rock ....) . Did
Adam Theo mention any license changes ?
IMHO, what is really needed is an "interesting" program to
run on DotGNU's network to make it popular. IM is one ;-)
The difference between insanity and genius is only measured by success
|| GNU RULEZ ||
[DotGNU]Why DotGNU should go Jabber (was Re: Microsoft guru: Stamp out HTTP), Norbert Bollow, 2002/02/27
Re: $user::user->Tell_Async ((was Re: [DotGNU]Why DotGNU should go Jabber, Norbert Bollow, 2002/02/27
Re: $user::user->Tell_Async ((was Re: [DotGNU]Why DotGNU should go Jabber,
Re: [DotGNU]Why DotGNU should go Jabber (was Re: Microsoft guru: Stamp out HTTP), S11001001, 2002/02/27
Re: [DotGNU]Why DotGNU should go Jabber (was Re: Microsoft guru: Stamp out HTTP), Norbert Bollow, 2002/02/28
Re: [DotGNU]Microsoft guru: Stamp out HTTP, Carsten Kuckuk, 2002/02/27