Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #171052 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-13 05:00 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-09-08 16:20 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 114 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-08-13 05:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-08-13 06:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-08-15 14:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA> - 2016-08-16 18:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-08-16 22:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-08-17 04:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-08-17 05:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-08-17 13:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-08-15 16:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 08:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 20:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA> - 2016-08-25 20:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 11:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-08-30 15:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 16:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-08-30 16:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 16:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 20:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-08-30 17:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2016-08-30 17:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 18:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 18:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-08-30 23:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 19:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 20:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 21:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 23:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 23:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 01:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-31 00:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-31 01:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 02:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-31 22:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-09-01 12:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-08-31 16:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 16:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 17:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-08-31 17:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-08-31 20:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-09-01 22:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-08-31 18:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 18:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 18:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-08-31 18:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 20:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-08-31 20:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 23:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-31 21:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-09-01 20:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-31 21:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-08-30 18:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 20:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-08-30 21:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 23:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-08-30 21:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 21:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-08-30 22:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-08-30 22:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2016-08-30 17:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 18:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 20:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 20:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 20:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 21:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 22:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 22:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 20:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 08:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-08-31 09:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? claude juif <claude.juif@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 11:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-31 14:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? claude juif <claude.juif@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 10:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 21:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 11:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-09-02 15:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-09-02 18:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 15:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-08-31 15:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 20:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-09-01 18:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 20:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-09-01 21:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-08-31 16:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? claude juif <claude.juif@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 10:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-09-01 16:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-31 20:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 22:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Ralph Katz <ralph.katz@rcn.com> - 2016-08-17 16:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-08-17 16:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Ralph Katz <ralph.katz@rcn.com> - 2016-08-17 18:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2016-08-17 19:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2016-08-17 20:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 21:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 21:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희)" <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> - 2016-09-01 17:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA> - 2016-09-01 22:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 07:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희)" <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> - 2016-09-03 15:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-09-02 11:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희)" <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> - 2016-09-03 15:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-09-07 15:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Paul Johnson <baloo@ursamundi.org> - 2016-09-07 15:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희)" <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> - 2016-09-07 17:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-09-07 19:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Byung-Hee HWANG <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> - 2016-09-08 01:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 01:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Michael Lange <klappnase@freenet.de> - 2016-09-08 02:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Byung-Hee HWANG <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> - 2016-09-08 05:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-09-08 06:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2016-09-08 13:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-09-08 13:50 +0200
GNU (was Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?) "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2016-09-08 15:20 +0200
Re: GNU (was Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?) Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 15:40 +0200
Re: GNU "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2016-09-08 16:20 +0200
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 20:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scEUp-5ni-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171674 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 06:12:36PM +0000, Amir H. Firouzian wrote: > > It's not my point of view, It's P2P philosophy. > LOL, you really crack me up. P2P philosophy? Seriously? > Is that taught at some university? Can you have a P2PhD there? * Go and visit MIT for CS (& wish that I will visit too!). http://freehaven.net/ > > > > if you consider the project that try to collect Internet Informations; > This > > philosophy seems to be rational. > > And this sentence doesn't even make sense. > What project? > And if there is a "project" how does the existence automatically imply that > it is the highest priority to prevent this from happening > > * First, Sensation needs Informations . Second, N owadays "Project" isn't so secret ! > > > PS.: Please don't top post. Especially not if someone already posted an > answer below. > > * Excuse for that :) -H > > -- > Henning Follmann | hfollmann@itcfollmann.com > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 21:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scFx7-5P0-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171679 |
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 06:21:22PM +0000, Amir H. Firouzian wrote: > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> > wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 06:12:36PM +0000, Amir H. Firouzian wrote: > > > It's not my point of view, It's P2P philosophy. > > LOL, you really crack me up. P2P philosophy? Seriously? > > Is that taught at some university? Can you have a P2PhD there? > > * Go and visit MIT for CS (& wish that I will visit too!). > http://freehaven.net/ > > Ok, that is ONE! P2P project which happen to have these values you claim are universal to P2P in general. I am happy that you found an existing project which aligns with your personal "philosophy" that however doesn't make this universal to all P2P. So it is a personal opinion. > > > > > > > > if you consider the project that try to collect Internet Informations; > > This > > > philosophy seems to be rational. > > > > And this sentence doesn't even make sense. > > What project? > > And if there is a "project" how does the existence automatically imply that > > it is the highest priority to prevent this from happening > > > > * First, Sensation > > needs Informations > > . Second, N > owadays > "Project" isn't so > secret > ! > Can you be more opaque? What the hell are you talking about? And define how to come from the existence of a "project" to come to a mandatory value hierachy. -H -- Henning Follmann | hfollmann@itcfollmann.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 16:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scedA-34F-33@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171608 |
> It's better that your message Not arrive instead of being disclose! and
> This is the philosophy behind True P2P IM systems.
Oh, I don't need 100% absolutely guaranteed delivery.
Just some reasonable expectation that messages won't be silently dropped
on the floor in fairly normal circumstances.
E.g. some email messages just don't get delivered, for instance because
they're misflagged as spam, but I still consider email as "reliable".
As a counter example, XMPP silently drops messages in various normal
circumstances, which XEP-0198 tries to address, similarly SIP tends to
drop messages on the floor if the destination is not currently
connected. Another problem with XMPP is when you use several clients,
in which case not all clients will necessarily see all messages.
As another example, BitMessage's approach of keeping messages for
2 days, together with some way for the sender to know if the message has
been received, seems good enough.
Stefan
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> wrote:
>> > You can't have all the best together.
>>
>> What does that mean, exactly? Are you saying it doesn't have reliable
>> message delivery? If so, that'd be a deal breaker for me.
>>
>>
>> Stefan "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an
>> unreliable messaging system"
>>
>>
>> > This mention in previous E-Mails as well. E.g:
>> <20160817192400.GB9964@alum>
>>
>> > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Stefan Monnier <
>> monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> > I think you looking for TOX!
>> >> > Visit TOX Project website:
>> >> > https://tox.chat
>> >>
>> >> Thanks. That does look promising (although I don't see any mention of
>> >> reliable delivery),
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Stefan
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Stefan Monnier <
>> >> monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> I'm looking for a decentralized instant message system (e.g. XMPP,
>> SIP,
>> >> >> ...) where I can be sure that I receive all messages, even if I'm not
>> >> >> connected when the message is sent [ Obviously, I'll only receive
>> them
>> >> >> when I'm back online. ]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> IIUC there is some XMPP features that allow such reliable delivery,
>> but
>> >> >> it seems that it's not widely supported by clients. What Debian
>> >> >> clients, using which protocols, can provide reliable instant
>> messaging?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Stefan
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> PS: Bonus points if that feature is also available on an Android
>> >> >> application that's Free Software.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | claude juif <claude.juif@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 10:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scvxL-70R-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171612 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
2016-08-31 15:44 GMT+02:00 Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>: > > It's better that your message Not arrive instead of being disclose! and > > This is the philosophy behind True P2P IM systems. > > Oh, I don't need 100% absolutely guaranteed delivery. > > Just some reasonable expectation that messages won't be silently dropped > on the floor in fairly normal circumstances. > > E.g. some email messages just don't get delivered, for instance because > they're misflagged as spam, but I still consider email as "reliable". > > As a counter example, XMPP silently drops messages in various normal > circumstances, which XEP-0198 tries to address, similarly SIP tends to > drop messages on the floor if the destination is not currently > connected. Another problem with XMPP is when you use several clients, > in which case not all clients will necessarily see all messages. > You can have a look at astrachat (http://www.astrachat.com/) It's a XMPP client available on Linux, Android, IOS, and Windows. > > As another example, BitMessage's approach of keeping messages for > 2 days, together with some way for the sender to know if the message has > been received, seems good enough. > > > Stefan > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Stefan Monnier < > monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> > > wrote: > > >> > You can't have all the best together. > >> > >> What does that mean, exactly? Are you saying it doesn't have reliable > >> message delivery? If so, that'd be a deal breaker for me. > >> > >> > >> Stefan "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an > >> unreliable messaging system" > >> > >> > >> > This mention in previous E-Mails as well. E.g: > >> <20160817192400.GB9964@alum> > >> > >> > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Stefan Monnier < > >> monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> > >> > wrote: > >> > >> >> > I think you looking for TOX! > >> >> > Visit TOX Project website: > >> >> > https://tox.chat > >> >> > >> >> Thanks. That does look promising (although I don't see any mention > of > >> >> reliable delivery), > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Stefan > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Stefan Monnier < > >> >> monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >> I'm looking for a decentralized instant message system (e.g. XMPP, > >> SIP, > >> >> >> ...) where I can be sure that I receive all messages, even if I'm > not > >> >> >> connected when the message is sent [ Obviously, I'll only receive > >> them > >> >> >> when I'm back online. ] > >> >> >> > >> >> >> IIUC there is some XMPP features that allow such reliable > delivery, > >> but > >> >> >> it seems that it's not widely supported by clients. What Debian > >> >> >> clients, using which protocols, can provide reliable instant > >> messaging? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Stefan > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> PS: Bonus points if that feature is also available on an Android > >> >> >> application that's Free Software. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 16:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scAH7-2zZ-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171612 |
On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 09:05:36 (-0400), Stefan Monnier wrote: > [...] Are you saying [TOX] doesn't have reliable > message delivery? If so, that'd be a deal breaker for me. On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 09:44:01 (-0400), Stefan Monnier wrote: > > It's better that your message Not arrive instead of being disclose! and > > This is the philosophy behind True P2P IM systems. > > Oh, I don't need 100% absolutely guaranteed delivery. > > Just some reasonable expectation that messages won't be silently dropped > on the floor in fairly normal circumstances. Not knowing what the application is, it's difficult to do more than throw a few suggestions into the ring (and have them shot down, to mix metaphors). I've seen things mentioned that I'd never heard of, like Astrachat, AMQP, Protonmail, to mention but three. So it might be time to weigh things up with a summary of what you've learned, and perhaps to rank them on scales of reliability, centralisation, security, etc. You appear to have enough requirements perhaps to think about using two parallel systems in combination, as I suggested in https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/08/msg00604.html (which only addressed the online/offline problem). > >> Stefan "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an > >> unreliable messaging system" There are plenty of precendents: scratching on walls, tossing bottles into the ocean, exporting golden records. Obviously EMI were convinced that those records would be retrieved by someone within 100 years and pirated, as they refused permission to export "Here Comes the Sun" from the solar system. Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 20:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sciqR-5Th-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171608 |
On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 13:14:08 +0000, Amir H. Firouzian wrote: > There is a trade off between decentralization & reliability. Traditional > E-Mail that people are talking about is NOT TRULY decentral. > For instance think about how E-Mail work: > 1- Mail Client Query MX record from DNS IM systems don't do this too? What do they use? Telepathy? > 2- Connect to SMTP Server and Exchange E-Mail. Ok. That's unarguable. > 3- SMTP figure out the sender IP and look domain of E-Mail My server doesn't do that. I suppose I could instruct it to. > 3- SMTP server query SRV Record of that domain and check is that IP valid. My server doesn't do that. I suppose I could instruct it to. > 4- (Nowadays) SMTP query DKIM (Which is TXT record) and validate also. My server doesn't necessarily do that; it depends; I suppose I could instruct it never to do it. > So think how BITMESSAGE > <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitmessage&oldid=734000991>: > 1- The massage ONLY can access in TWO DAYS! > 2- All Nodes have ALL E-Mail in Cryptic Form. The link says Bitmessage is a decentralized, encrypted, peer-to-peer, trustless communications protocol that can be used by one person to send encrypted messages to another person, or to multiple subscribers. How does this sound? Email is a decentralized, encrypted, peer-to-peer, trustless communications protocol that can be used by one person to send encrypted messages to another person, or to multiple subscribers. > About you last sentence: > It's better that your message Not arrive instead of being disclose! and > This is the philosophy behind True P2P IM systems. It's a lousy philosophy. The purpose of communication systems is to communicate reliably. I think you must have some special circumstances in mind.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 22:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scksF-77q-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171644 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 13:14:08 +0000, Amir H. Firouzian wrote: > > > There is a trade off between decentralization & reliability. Traditional > > E-Mail that people are talking about is NOT TRULY decentral. > > For instance think about how E-Mail work: > > 1- Mail Client Query MX record from DNS > > IM systems don't do this too? What do they use? Telepathy? > > > 2- Connect to SMTP Server and Exchange E-Mail. > > Ok. That's unarguable. > > > 3- SMTP figure out the sender IP and look domain of E-Mail > > My server doesn't do that. I suppose I could instruct it to. > > > 3- SMTP server query SRV Record of that domain and check is that IP > valid. > > My server doesn't do that. I suppose I could instruct it to. > > > 4- (Nowadays) SMTP query DKIM (Which is TXT record) and validate also. > My server doesn't necessarily do that; it depends; I suppose I could > instruct it never to do it. > * My Point isn't how YOUR server work! This is how E-Mail providers does. > > > So think how BITMESSAGE > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitmessage&oldid=734000991>: > > 1- The massage ONLY can access in TWO DAYS! > > 2- All Nodes have ALL E-Mail in Cryptic Form. > > The link says > > Bitmessage is a decentralized, encrypted, peer-to-peer, trustless > communications protocol that can be used by one person to send > encrypted messages to another person, or to multiple subscribers. > > How does this sound? > > Email is a decentralized, encrypted, peer-to-peer, trustless > communications protocol that can be used by one person to send > encrypted messages to another person, or to multiple subscribers. > * But there is completely different. First it isn't P2P; It's Server to Server. Second it base on TRUST; You trust on E-Mail providers; When you send message in traditional E-Mail your E-Mail provider know what you send. The term that technical people said is "End-To-End Encryption" or OTR (Off The Record). Proton Email <https://protonmail.com/> already solve this problem. First Problem which named decentralization is more complex. Your E-Mail is already going to some Server which is define by your E-Mail Address's domain; We don't call it "Decentral". In BITMESSAGE your address is kind of string that look like BITCOIN addresses. e.g: 1dice8EMZmqKvrGE4Qc9bUFf9PX3xaYD p ALL the message within two days are accessible for ALL People in BITMESSAGE Net; But it's Cryptic and ONLY the TRUE Receiver which have the Private Key of That Address can decrypt message. It's like someone send ALL People something and you are the only person in world know how to open it (Of Course if N Not Equal NP <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=P_versus_NP_problem&oldid=736074385> & HERE <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shor%27s_algorithm&oldid=736686926>)! It's called "Asymmetric Encryption <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public-key_cryptography&oldid=736786168> ". > > About you last sentence: > > It's better that your message Not arrive instead of being disclose! and > > This is the philosophy behind True P2P IM systems. > > It's a lousy philosophy. The purpose of communication systems is to > communicate reliably. I think you must have some special circumstances > in mind. > > * My point isn't "We don't care about reliability" instead There are plenty of research doing to make it more reliability; But it isn't our FIRST Priority. In addition being skeptical is very strong reason to use it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ralph Katz <ralph.katz@rcn.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 16:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <s79Rf-29m-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171052 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 08/12/2016 10:49 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: > I'm looking for a decentralized instant message system (e.g. XMPP, SIP, > ...) where I can be sure that I receive all messages, even if I'm not > connected when the message is sent [ Obviously, I'll only receive them > when I'm back online. ] > > IIUC there is some XMPP features that allow such reliable delivery, but > it seems that it's not widely supported by clients. What Debian > clients, using which protocols, can provide reliable instant messaging? > > > Stefan > > > PS: Bonus points if that feature is also available on an Android > application that's Free Software. Has anyone mentioned pidgin which supports many protocols including sending SMS texts via AOL? I use it for AOL IM with OTR Off-the-Record Messaging plugin. I also like sending SMS texts from the keyboard as well. apt-cache show pidgin pidgin-otr Regards, Ralph
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 16:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <s7aki-2lb-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171181 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:17:26AM -0400, Ralph Katz wrote: >On 08/12/2016 10:49 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> I'm looking for a decentralized instant message system (e.g. XMPP, SIP, >> ...) where I can be sure that I receive all messages, even if I'm not >> connected when the message is sent [ Obviously, I'll only receive them >> when I'm back online. ] >> >> IIUC there is some XMPP features that allow such reliable delivery, but >> it seems that it's not widely supported by clients. What Debian >> clients, using which protocols, can provide reliable instant messaging? >> >> >> Stefan >> >> >> PS: Bonus points if that feature is also available on an Android >> application that's Free Software. > >Has anyone mentioned pidgin which supports many protocols including >sending SMS texts via AOL? I use it for AOL IM with OTR Off-the-Record >Messaging plugin. I also like sending SMS texts from the keyboard as well. How is sending by AOL decentralised? For the record, XMPP is a decentralised/federated system in the same way as email. If I have an account juliet@montague.org and I send a message to romeo@capulet.net, then that message can pass from my client machine, to my XMPP server (xmpp.mongague.org) to the recipient's server (megahost.verona.gov) and thence to the recipient's client. There is no single, central authority who knows all of the clients. There is no single point of failure. There is also the freedom for people to run their own servers (as juliet does) or to use the servers of some other organisation (i.e. "Cloud", as romeo does). Can I create an AOL server on my own machine? > >apt-cache show pidgin pidgin-otr > >Regards, >Ralph > > > -- For more information, please reread.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ralph Katz <ralph.katz@rcn.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 18:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <s7ccp-3AT-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171185 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On 08/17/2016 10:41 AM, Darac Marjal wrote: > How is sending by AOL decentralised? Hi Darac -- I suggested looking at pidgin and pidgin-otr to meet the stated needs. The fact that my use of AOL IM via pidgin was not such an example was not intended to mislead anyone. You are correct that AOL IM is centralized. Note that pidgin allows Direct IM to AOL clients, however. Regards, Ralph
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 19:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <s7cYO-49X-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171192 |
Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote > I'm looking for a decentralized instant message system (e.g. XMPP, SIP, > ...) where I can be sure that I receive all messages, even if I'm not > connected when the message is sent [ Obviously, I'll only receive them > when I'm back online. ] > > IIUC there is some XMPP features that allow such reliable delivery, but > it seems that it's not widely supported by clients. What Debian > clients, using which protocols, can provide reliable instant messaging? Well, XMPP and SIP aren't really decentralized - what with requiring servers and all. And reliable, might be an issue - few messaging systems can promise reliable delivery, particularly when threads involve multiple senders and recipients, and the more so if there's no central server involved. Having said that, if you want something truly decentralized you might look at: - gnutella chat - freenet chat - WASTE - the BitTorrent folks were working on some kind of chat - And there's a good list of protocols at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_instant_messaging_protocols -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 20:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <s7dLb-4HE-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171195 |
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 01:32:47PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote > > > I'm looking for a decentralized instant message system (e.g. XMPP, SIP, > > ...) where I can be sure that I receive all messages, even if I'm not > > connected when the message is sent [ Obviously, I'll only receive them > > when I'm back online. ] > > > > IIUC there is some XMPP features that allow such reliable delivery, but > > it seems that it's not widely supported by clients. What Debian > > clients, using which protocols, can provide reliable instant messaging? > > Well, XMPP and SIP aren't really decentralized - what with requiring servers > and all. You mean like email? Like email, XMPP and SIP are federated systems where anyone can run a server, or get an account on someone else's server. Once you have access through that account, you should be able to send to and receive from any other user. XMPP and SIP use the same sort of username@domain.tld system that email does, so finding an appropriate server to accept the message should be no more difficult than finding an email server to accept mail for mfidelman. > Having said that, if you want something truly decentralized you might look > at: > - gnutella chat It is decentralized, and as a result cannot implement reliable delivery to offline users. > - freenet chat One of the developers wrote "chatting over FreeNet is insane because of the lag, but we're going to do it anyway" > - WASTE No Linux clients. > - the BitTorrent folks were working on some kind of chat "Bleep". Not open-source. They say it's distributed, and they say that it's 100% encrypted, and they say it's distributed... They also say they need to make money on it, and they aren't showing ads, so where is that money coming from? -dsr-
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 21:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <s7eee-4TR-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171197 |
On Wed 17 Aug 2016 at 14:27:16 -0400, Dan Ritter wrote: > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 01:32:47PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote: > > Having said that, if you want something truly decentralized you might look > > at: > > - gnutella chat > > It is decentralized, and as a result cannot implement reliable > delivery to offline users. The OP has I'm looking for a decentralized instant message system ... Perhaps he should say what he means by "decentralized" and we can stop hunting about in the dark. Any method which needs offline delivery could be seen as centralised because the message has to go somewhere other than the intended destination.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-17 21:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <s7eHg-5l0-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171198 |
On Wed 17 Aug 2016 at 19:57:25 (+0100), Brian wrote: > On Wed 17 Aug 2016 at 14:27:16 -0400, Dan Ritter wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 01:32:47PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote: > > > Having said that, if you want something truly decentralized you might look > > > at: > > > - gnutella chat > > > > It is decentralized, and as a result cannot implement reliable > > delivery to offline users. > > The OP has > > I'm looking for a decentralized instant message system ... > > Perhaps he should say what he means by "decentralized" and we can stop > hunting about in the dark. Any method which needs offline delivery could > be seen as centralised because the message has to go somewhere other > than the intended destination. I agree. The OP contains a contradiction anyway: "instant message ... even if I'm not connected." Decades ago, we solved this just by using notify (instant) and send (email) together (on Phoenix/IBM 370 et seq.). I don't recall whether this was discouraged. Using WTO (Write To Operator) for example would cause immediate cancellation of a job. Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희)" <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 17:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scBMR-3uT-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171052 |
Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> 께서 쓰시길, 《記事 全文 <jwv1t1to0at.fsf-monnier+gmane.linux.debian.user@gnu.org> 에서》: > I'm looking for a decentralized instant message system (e.g. XMPP, SIP, > ...) where I can be sure that I receive all messages, even if I'm not > connected when the message is sent [ Obviously, I'll only receive them > when I'm back online. ] > > IIUC there is some XMPP features that allow such reliable delivery, but > it seems that it's not widely supported by clients. What Debian > clients, using which protocols, can provide reliable instant messaging? > > > Stefan > > > PS: Bonus points if that feature is also available on an Android > application that's Free Software. Hello, In Korea, all most people are using KakaoTalk (android app). If i am wrong, sorry, and let it go to off-topic. Sincerely, -- ^고맙습니다 _地平天成_ 감사합니다_^))//
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 22:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scGCS-6u2-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171671 |
> In Korea, all most people are using KakaoTalk (android app).
> If i am wrong, sorry, and let it go to off-topic.
It's not decentralized. IOW you're dependent on one central
server/company and everything goes through them, they get an insane
amount of data and power this way.
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-02 07:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scPwt-3No-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171686 |
Stefan Monnier wrote: >> In Korea, all most people are using KakaoTalk (android app). >> If i am wrong, sorry, and let it go to off-topic. > > It's not decentralized. IOW you're dependent on one central > server/company and everything goes through them, they get an insane > amount of data and power this way. > > > Stefan South Korea - an example of democracy (irony off)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희)" <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-03 15:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sdjkR-5GQ-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171694 |
deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> 께서 쓰시길, 《記事 全文 <nqb3ge$1jd$1@blaine.gmane.org> 에서》: > [...] > South Korea - an example of democracy (irony off) OK. North Korea is "_Democratic_ People's Republic of Korea" officially. Anyway, someday far later, we will do unify to one like as Germany. Sincerely, -- ^고맙습니다 _地平天成_ 감사합니다_^))//
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-02 11:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scTgJ-6aO-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171686 |
On Thu 01 Sep 2016 at 16:05:45 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > In Korea, all most people are using KakaoTalk (android app). > > If i am wrong, sorry, and let it go to off-topic. > > It's not decentralized. IOW you're dependent on one central > server/company and everything goes through them, they get an insane > amount of data and power this way. Your initial query has received pretty full treatment and there appears to be only one pure IM client suggested which fulfills your criteria, which is TOX. However, you must have been doing your own research on peer-to-peer IM clients and have come to some conclusion on whether they are thick on the ground and whether there is one which suits you. Perhaps you could summarise your findings for the list.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희)" <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-03 15:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sdjbb-5DO-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171686 |
Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA> 께서 쓰시길, 《記事 全文 <jwvtwdzfkta.fsf-monnier+Inbox@gnu.org> 에서》: >> In Korea, all most people are using KakaoTalk (android app). >> If i am wrong, sorry, and let it go to off-topic. > > It's not decentralized. IOW you're dependent on one central > server/company and everything goes through them, they get an insane > amount of data and power this way. By your comments, i did get KakaoTalk internal, thanks!!! -- ^고맙습니다 _地平天成_ 감사합니다_^))//
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web