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: İlker Aktuna (Koç.net)
Cc: samuel;
serusers@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@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@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@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
> > > > > >
