Do you mean it won't work with privacy-lists ?
What can I try
?
Thanks,
ilker
-----Original Message-----
From: Vaclav
Kubart [mailto:vaclav.kubart@iptel.org]
Sent:
Friday, May 26, 2006 4:40 PM
To: İlker Aktuna (Koç.net)
Cc: samuel;
serusers@iptel.org
Subject: Re: Authorizing IM requests
EyeBeam won't
use im-rules and SER won't use with privacy-lists. It something
else.
Vaclav
On Fri,
May 26, 2006 at 02:24:42PM +0300, ?lker Aktuna (Koç.net) wrote:
> Hi
Samuel,
>
> Now that presence is working I'm checking xcap
possibilities.
> I see that IM xcap authorization is not
working.
>
> I don't know what to use in:
> >if
(authorize_message("im-rules.xml")){
>
> My client (Eyebeam) does
not use im-rules.xml , but it uses
> privacy-lists.xml and that file is in
privacy-lists folder. How
> should I change the configuration line
to use this file ?
>
> Regards,
> ilker
>
>
-----Original Message-----
> From: samuel [mailto:samu60@gmail.com]
> Sent:
Tuesday, May 16, 2006 5:26 PM
> To: Vaclav Kubart
> Cc: ?lker Aktuna
(Koç.net); serusers@iptel.org
> Subject: Re: [Serusers] PA error sending
notifies
>
> 2006/5/16, Vaclav Kubart
<vaclav.kubart@iptel.org>:
> > reply inline...
> > >
If you are using XCAP authentication for MESSAGEs, there's a
> > >
function called authorize_message that needs to have as parameter
> >
> the file name of the IM ruleset.
> > > For user sam, in
xcap-root/im-rules/users/sam/im-rules.xml there
> > > are the rules
for this function. The XML file is similar to the
> > >
presence-rules but has important differences (correct me if I'm
> >
> wrong,
> > > Vaclav!!!):
> > > *it only has a
blacklist parameter (no whitelist!!)
> >
> > It doesn't depend
on name of the rule (blacklist/whitelist/...) it
> > depends on the
action (block, ...). You can have as many rules as
> > you want, but to
explicitly enable something (whitelist) is needless
> > because
MESSSAGEs are allowed by default (at the end of the presence
> >
handbook I tried to describe im-rules the same way as presence-rules
>
> are described in their draft).
> >
> > > *the
namespace is different (so be carefull in copy&paste from the
> >
> presence-rules!!!) and, as Vaclav poitned out "proprietary" from
>
> > iptel.
> >
> > And the action element name differs:
<im-handling> is used instead
> > of
<sub-handling>.
> >
>
> Uops...I haven't noticed :P
thanks!
>
> >
Vaclav
> >
> > >
> > > About the structure I
have: x86 debian testing. Libraries versions
> > > I don't know
exactly but the ones in the testing repository EXCEPT
> > > a
library which I had to get for serweb from the stable
> > >
version...but it's not affecting SER part.
> > >
> > >
Samuel.
> > > 2006/5/16, ?lker Aktuna (Koç. net )
<ilkera@koc.net>:
> > > >
> > > >
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > >Hi,
> >
> >
> > > >What did you mean by following:
>
> > >
> > > >>Instead of
> > >
>>>
> > > >>> if (authorize_message("http://localhost/xcap")) {
> > >
>>
> > > >>there should be
> > >
>>
> > > >>if
(authorize_message("im-rules.xml")){
> > > >
> > >
>Btw, did you receive my email with following questions :
> > >
>
> > > >>> I have the same problem with notification
and other presence
> > > >>> messages
> > >
>with you.
> > > >>> Can you tell me which Linux
distribution you are using Ser on ?
> > > >>> Also please
include version numbers for libraries that are
> > > >>>
required by
> > > >Ser.
> > > >>>
>
> > >>> I am trying to find similarities between yours and my ser
server.
> > > >
> > > >Regards,
> > >
>ilker
> > > >
> > > >-----Original
Message-----
> > > >From: serusers-bounces@iptel.org
> >
> >[mailto:serusers-bounces@iptel.org]
On Behalf Of samuel
> > > >Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 7:13
PM
> > > >To: Vaclav Kubart
> > > >Cc:
serusers@iptel.org
> > > >Subject: Re: [Serusers] PA error
sending notifies
> > > >
> > > >Let's see if I can
finish the e-mail before gmail decides it's
> > >
>enough...:P
> > > >
> > > >006/5/15, samuel
<samu60@gmail.com>:
> > > >> Following with the
handbook...
> > > >
> > > >>
> > >
>> the authorize message in the sample confgi files has as
> >
> >> parameter the xcap root while it should have the xml file
containing the auth.rules.
> > > >
> > > >
>
> > >Instead of
> > > >
> > >
>>
> > > >> if (authorize_message("http://localhost/xcap")) {
> > >
>
> > > >there should be
> > > >
> >
> >if (authorize_message("im-rules.xml")){
> > > >
>
> > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
>
> > >> 2006/5/15, samuel <samu60@gmail.com>:
> > >
>> > First of all, I have to thank you for the time you spent
>
> > >> > writing the handbook, it's really really helpfull....I
wish
> > > >> > all SER related parts had this
docs..
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I'll try
to get familiar with the code of the notifications
> > > >>
> and I'll try to find something....which I don't thing so :P.
> >
> >> > I'll also merge the two functionalities (proxy + presence)
in
> > > >> > a unique config file to see if it
works.
> > > >> > I hope I can provide more info these
following days.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
About the missing things in the presence handbook, probably
> > >
>> > the most important is the new xcap module because in the
>
> > >> > sample config files it's missing.
> > >
>> > Another thing is that in the XCAP structure description,
the
> > > >> > im-rules directory is missing, which might
lead to
> > > >> > misunderstandings. I downloaded the
structure from the
> > > >> > iptel's ftp and inside the
im-rules there were several files
> > > >> > corresponding
to presence-rules which should be either
> > > >> > removed
or updated with the im-rules namespaces and removing the whitelist.
> >
> >> >
> > > >> > Thanks,
> > >
>> >
> > > >> > Samuel.
> > > >>
>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
>
> > >> >
> > > >> > 2006/5/15, Vaclav Kubart
<vaclav.kubart@iptel.org>:
> > > >> > >
Hi,
> > > >> > > this problem I'm trying to solve with
Ilker Aktuna. I try
> > > >> > > to simulate it on my
machine and let you know. Or if you
> > > >> > > solve
it,
> > > >please
> > > >let me know.
> >
> >> > > :-)
> > > >> > >
> >
> >> > > Please, could you tell me, what things you were missing
in
> > > >> > > presence handbook? I'm trying to do it
as useful as
> > > >> > > possible and whatever ideas
are welcome...
> > > >> > >
> > > >>
> > Vaclav
> >
> >> > >
> > > >> > > On Mon, May 15,
2006 at 01:38:02PM +0200, samuel wrote:
> > > >> > >
> Hi all,
> > > >> > > >
> > >
>> > > > I recently had a few hours and start installing
the
> > > >> > > > presence staff and I have to say
that I have it amost
> > > >> > > > workign thanks to
the presence handbook, the mailing list
> > > >> > >
> and, obviously, a little bit of code review..:P
> > > >>
> > >
> > > >> > > > I have two SER
instances, the "proxy" and the "presence server"
> > > >> >
> > (both with last CVS code) co-located in the same host and
> >
> >> > > > I have an issue when the "presence server" tries to
send
> > > >> > > > the NOTIFY requests. Below
there's an attched log showing
> > > >> > > > the
problem (on IP a.b.c.d I've got the two instances):
> > > >>
> > >
> > > >> > > > 3(30682) DEBUG
notify.c:378: sending winfo notify
> > > >> > > >
3(30682) DEBUG notify.c:383: winfo document created
> > > >>
> > > 3(30682) DEBUG notify.c:391: creating headers
> > >
>> > > > 3(30682) DEBUG notify.c:398: headers created
>
> > >> > > > 3(30682) DEBUG:tm:t_uac:
> > >
>> > > >
> > >
>next_hop=<sip:a.b.c.d;transport=tcp;ftag=c77b3f33;lr=on>
> >
> >> > > > 3(30682) t_uac: no socket found
> > >
>> > > > 3(30682) DEBUG notify.c:402: request sent with result
-7
> > > >> > > > 3(30682) ERROR: notify.c:404: Can't
send watcherinfo
> > > >> > > > notification
(-7)
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> >
> > This problem appears in other places, not only in the
> >
> >> > > > notifications for winfo so probably there's
somthing in
> > > >> > > > the selection of the
outgoing socket directing to the local IP.
> > > >> > >
>
> > > >> > > > >From the proxy part I just
ust t_forward_nonack for the "SIMPLE"
> > > >> > > >
messages with record route....maybe adding the port in
> > >
>> > > > the record route should help?
> > >
>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
> > > >
> > >
>_________________________________________________________________
>
> > >__
> > >
>_________________________________________________________________
>
> > >__ _______ Bu e-posta mesaji kisiye ozel olup, gizli
bilgiler
> > > >iceriyor olabilir. Eger bu e-posta mesaji size
yanlislikla
> > > >ulasmissa, icerigini hic bir sekilde
kullanmayiniz ve ekli
> > > >dosyalari acmayiniz. Bu durumda
lutfen e-posta mesajini
> > > >kullaniciya hemen geri
gonderiniz ve tum kopyalarini mesaj
> > > >kutunuzdan
siliniz. Bu e-posta mesaji, hic bir sekilde, herhangi
> > > >bir
amac icin cogaltilamaz, yayinlanamaz ve para karsiligi
> > >
>satilamaz. Bu e-posta mesaji viruslere karsi anti-virus
> >
> >sistemleri tarafindan taranmistir. Ancak yollayici, bu e-posta
>
> > >mesajinin - virus koruma sistemleri ile kontrol ediliyor
olsa
> > > >bile - virus icermedigini garanti etmez ve meydana
gelebilecek
> > > >zararlardan dogacak hicbir sorumlulugu kabul
etmez.
> > > >This message is intended solely for the use of the
individual or
> > > >entity to whom it is addressed , and may
contain confidential
> > > >information. If you are not the
intended recipient of this
> > > >message or you receive this
mail in error, you should refrain
> > > >from making any use of
the contents and from opening any
> > > >attachment. In that
case, please notify the sender immediately
> > > >and return the
message to the sender, then, delete and destroy all copies.
> > >
>This e-mail message, can not be copied, published or sold for any
reason.
> > > >This e-mail message has been swept by anti-virus
systems for the
> > > >presence of computer viruses. In doing so,
however, sender
> > > >cannot warrant that virus or
other forms of data corruption may
> > > >not be present and do
not take any responsibility in any occurrence.
> > >
>_________________________________________________________________
>
> > >__
> > >
>_________________________________________________________________
>
> > >__
> > > >_______
> > > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<http://387555.sigclick.mailinfo.com/sigclick/05090E04/0C024D08/070845
>
03/06191971.jpg>
>
______________________________________________________________________
>
______________________________________________________________________
> _
Bu e-posta mesaji kisiye ozel olup, gizli bilgiler iceriyor
> olabilir.
Eger bu e-posta mesaji size yanlislikla ulasmissa, icerigini hic bir
sekilde kullanmayiniz ve ekli dosyalari acmayiniz. Bu durumda lutfen e-posta
mesajini kullaniciya hemen geri gonderiniz ve tum kopyalarini mesaj
kutunuzdan siliniz. Bu e-posta mesaji, hic bir sekilde, herhangi bir amac icin
cogaltilamaz, yayinlanamaz ve para karsiligi satilamaz. Bu e-posta mesaji
viruslere karsi anti-virus sistemleri tarafindan taranmistir. Ancak yollayici,
bu e-posta mesajinin - virus koruma sistemleri ile kontrol ediliyor olsa bile -
virus icermedigini garanti etmez ve meydana gelebilecek zararlardan dogacak
hicbir sorumlulugu kabul etmez.
> This message is intended solely for the
use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed , and may contain
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this
message or you receive this mail in error, you should refrain from making any
use of the contents and from opening any attachment. In that case, please notify
the sender immediately and return the message to the sender, then, delete and
destroy all copies. This e-mail message, can not be copied, published or sold
for any reason. This e-mail message has been swept by anti-virus systems for the
presence of computer viruses. In doing so, however, sender cannot
warrant that virus or other forms of data corruption may not be present and do
not take any responsibility in any occurrence.
>
______________________________________________________________________
>
______________________________________________________________________
>
_