[Serusers] PA module

Vaclav Kubart vaclav.kubart at iptel.org
Wed May 3 10:37:36 CEST 2006


It is interesting, but Windows Messenger is not as bad as you can think.
PA works with it (4.7, 5.1), but only UDP because of using maddr
extension in contacts if using TCP.

I think that there is "new" 4.7 release because I have downloaded it
about half an year ago and this version was much better than 5.1
downloaded some time before (for example unsubscriptions are done in
reasonable way instead of sending lots of messages at the end as done
before).

It doesn't use PUBLISH (it uses some SOAP call instead), but as soon as
will be PA able to do subscriptions to users it will hopefuly work. (PA
is prepared for it now, but this code must wait till perfomance issues
will be solved).

Most clients able to handle presence messages handle them in their own
way and have bugs in it, thus Messenger is really not the only one
client behaving a bit strange.

I'm not sure about version, but I think that 0.9.6 has too old presence
modules to be really working. I recommend to use presence snapshot
(ftp://ftp.iptel.org/pub/ser/presence) or CVS version. Warning CVS
version doesn't correspond with "presence handbook" (text about presence
in SER) published on that FTP - some changes oin parameters were done,
new XCAP module, ...

	Vaclav

On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 02:52:16PM +0700, Andrey Kouprianov wrote:
> I dont think using Win Msgr for presence is a good idea. It's old and
> does not coply with the current standards. Maybe try using eyeBeam
> instead.
> 
> On 5/3/06, Darko <darko at veze.net> wrote:
> >HI,
> >
> >I'm trying to manage presence of Win Messenger UA, but stuck at very
> >beginning. Messenger doesn't send Expires in header and RFC3265 says it
> >SHOULD be there, but if isn't use default value for event package (?).
> >Ok, removed test (_m->expires==0) in function parse_hfs from subscribe.c 
> >and
> >got response 200 OK (without Expires header and RFC says that there MUST be
> >one), and funny NOTIFY after that.
> >Source address of NOTIFY is from my second interface, not one that 
> >communicate
> >with UA, but it seems that it isn't big problem. Big one is destination 
> >port
> >which is chosen with, for me, unknown condition. So, only reply from UA
> >computer is ICMP port unreachable.
> >SER version is 0.9.6.
> >
> >BRs, Darko
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Serusers mailing list
> >serusers at lists.iptel.org
> >http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers




More information about the sr-users mailing list