31 May
2006
31 May
'06
11:57 a.m.
The file format is different! You really CAN NOT set these rules from
EyeBeam. The filename is given as parameter to authorize_message
function (in CVS version; not snapshot).
If you need it quickly you really have to correct it somewhere in
sources (I don't know where).
Vaclav
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 10:52:42AM +0300, ?lker Aktuna (Koç.net) wrote:
Hi Vaclav,
On which file does Ser look for when authorizing messages ?
According to that maybe I can link privacy-lists file to im-rules file (which Ser looks
for)
Would that work ?
Usrloc problem is very important for me. Please tell me anything I can do to find out the
problem (if there is anything that I can do)
Thanks,
ilker
-----Original Message-----
From: Vaclav Kubart [mailto:vaclav.kubart@iptel.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 9:29 AM
To: ?lker Aktuna (Koç.net)
Cc: samuel; serusers(a)iptel.org
Subject: Re: Authorizing IM requests
Hi,
yes I did, but I had forgotten...
You can NOT use EyeBeam to work with message authorization - it will NEVER set the rules
which are needed by SER. You can do this only manually on XCAP server.
I try to look on the userloc problem, but don't know when.
Vaclav
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 05:29:27PM +0300, ?lker Aktuna (Koç.net) wrote:
Hi Vaclav,
Did you receive my following email ?
Btw, I still couldn't find the neccessary db structure for using
usrloc with db support. Can you point me to the right person who knows
the required db structure ?
Thanks,
ilker
________________________________
From: ?lker Aktuna (Koç.net)
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:52 PM
To: 'Vaclav Kubart'
Cc: samuel; serusers(a)iptel.org
Subject: RE: Authorizing IM requests
Well, then what can I use in the following line to authorize IM messages ?
if (authorize_message("https://sip.koc.net/xcap")) {
Eyebeam updates file /xcap/privacy-lists/user/privacy-lists.xml when I change the
"privacy" configuration on Eyebeam client.
Thanks,
ilker
-----Original Message-----
From: Vaclav Kubart [mailto:vaclav.kubart@iptel.org]
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 4:48 PM
To: ?lker Aktuna (Koç.net)
Cc: samuel; serusers(a)iptel.org
Subject: Re: Authorizing IM requests
Yes, I meant, that this will not work together.
I don't know. Privacy-lists are something eyeBeam's internal or something
standardized?
Im-rules are SER internal.
Vaclav
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 04:43:35PM +0300, ?lker Aktuna (Koç.net) wrote:
> 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: ?lker Aktuna (Koç.net)
> Cc: samuel; serusers(a)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(a)iptel.org
> > Subject: Re: [Serusers] PA error sending notifies
> >
> > 2006/5/16, Vaclav Kubart <vaclav.kubart(a)iptel.org>rg>:
> > > 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(a)koc.net>et>:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >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
> > > > >
<http://387555.sigclick.mailinfo.com/sigclick/06090304/030C4A09/02014803/15141696.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.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________