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: İlker 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.
> >
>___________________________________________________________________
>
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>
> >_______
> > >
>