[Serdev] usrloc loading

[Michal Matyska]

Sorry for the thread intervention.... here are the facts:
(openser CVS HEAD updated few minutes ago)
#cat breakrfc.cfg
listen=lo

loadmodule "./modules/sl/sl.so"
loadmodule "./modules/textops/textops.so"

route{
        sl_reply("99999","Wh4t duya phink?\r\nVia: I hate RFC SIP/2.0
skype rulez\r\nFrom:\r\nFrom:\r\nFrom:");
}

#./openser -f breakrfc.cfg
# sipp -sn uac -m 1 localhost:5060

#tshark -r breakrfc.pcap
  1   0.000000    127.0.0.1 -> 127.0.0.1    SIP/SDP Request: INVITE
sip:service at 127.0.0.1:5060, with session description
  2   0.000478    127.0.0.1 -> 127.0.0.1    SIP Status: 999 Wh4t duya
phink?
  3   0.001066    127.0.0.1 -> 127.0.0.1    SIP Request: ACK
sip:service at 127.0.0.1:5060

(pcap attached ;-)


The more powerfull tool you have the more you have to be cautious....
you can cut the tree with the saw, but you can cut your fingers.

Howgh, Michal

P.S. The same applies to SER of course.

On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 13:37 +0200, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
> Hi Greger,
> 
> I'm sorry that my email upset you and please accept my apologies for that.
> 
> After all you posted a personal opinion about something (about OpenSER 
> ,in this case) and I asked if you could detail / explain this opinion. I 
> think all subscribers have the right to be correctly informed on the 
> matters discussed here, but I see you refuse my possibility to 
> contribute on this :(.
> 
> BTW, as you are involved in the administration of the project, can you 
> check what happens with my emails - they do not rich the list (even if 
> I'm subscribed) :(
> 
> Thanks and regards,
> Bogdan
> 
> Greger V. Teigre wrote:
> 
> > Hi Bogdan,
> > This was an element in a discussion about ser, not openser. I'm not 
> > interested in having a discussion about openser on serdev beyond 
> > comparisons that may set ser in some perspective, and I find your 
> > interruption quite tedious and self-centered. However, if you have 
> > opinions about ser that are relevant to the discussion, you are 
> > welcome to join.
> >
> > If you reread my post, you will see that my argument is that both ser 
> > and openser make it too easy too create ser.cfgs that break the RFC. 
> > Quite far from how you read it.
> >
> > Previous openser/ser discussions on serusers and serdev have not been 
> > very fruitful, ex. the performance discussions. If you want a dialog 
> > for the benefit of users or joint development work, feel free to make 
> > a proposal, but please refrain from self-righteous posts on serusers 
> > and serdev. You should allow SER users and developers to discuss ser 
> > from all sorts of perspectives without disturbing with your agenda. 
> > This is a privilege I believe the openser community enjoys on the 
> > openser lists.
> >
> > Considering that your historical default response in discussions is to 
> > state your opinion and then be silent, I assume this discussion is dead.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Greger
> >
> > Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Greger,
> >>
> >> OpenSER does not "pretend" to be everything to everybody, but tries 
> >> as much as possible to respond to the user's feedback (reports, 
> >> needs, etc).
> >>
> >> I know it is your HO, but can you be more specific (just list one or 
> >> two cases maybe) where you think OpenSER breaks RFCs?? I always 
> >> though that backing up with facts puts more strength in words.
> >>
> >> actually being RFC-compliant is one of the top requirements we have 
> >> as project and a lot of effort was put in this direction (RFC3261 - 
> >> correct via building, RFC3263 - complete algh implementation for 
> >> server discovery, etc)
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> bogdan
> >>
> >> Greger V. Teigre wrote:
> >>
> >>> :-) In fact, to me, OpenSER seems to pretend that it is all things 
> >>> to all people. That may work for a while (and in fact, maybe we 
> >>> should send some people to OpenSER...) IMHO, it seems that OpenSER 
> >>> is going in the opposite direction of SER by introducing all sorts 
> >>> of "special case" functionality that confuses people and allows them 
> >>> to break more parts of the RFCs.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Serdev mailing list
> Serdev at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: breakrfc.pcap
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 1638 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.iptel.org/pipermail/serdev/attachments/20070124/bcd3b3ee/breakrfc.obj