Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
I predominantly use Jabber for IM, and I have clients on my desktop and mobile devices. Being signed in to a Jabber server from multiple locations leads to problems: -some servers/clients try ad be smart and not send messages to a client it thinks is away or idle. So if you start a conversation on a mobile device, then put it down, and later (after some time) go to complete it at your desktop, a portion of the conversation will have ended up going to the mobile device and be absent from the desktop. -logging is inconsistently distributed among the devices, instead of centralized. If you then add the complication of encryption (OTR, http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/), things break even more, as each client has a unique client key, and switching clients mid-session results in breaking the encryption channel. (It might be possible to load the same key onto multiple devices. At minimum, switching devices will require a session key renegotiation.) The classic way this sort of problem was addressed with IRC is that you'd run a command line client on some server, and then just ssh in to that from any client machine. I'd rather not replicate that by using a command line Jabber client. Some of the logging issues can be addressed by running your own Jabber server, and doing the logging there, but that doesn't help if you are using someone else's Jabber server (Google's, for example). There are a few IM clients that also offer web-clients and will do server-side logging (IMO (https://imo.im/), which has web, Android, and other clients), but then you give up encryption and privacy. It seems like the solution might be some sort of Jabber proxy, that can do central logging and provide persistence for intermittently connected clients. It could also act as the OTR end-point, which breaks end-to-end security, but if I'm controlling the proxy and I have an SSL link between my clients and the proxy, I'm OK with that. Has anyone cobbled together a solution to this problem? -Tom -- Tom Metro Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA "Enterprise solutions through open source." Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |