[Serusers] PA error sending notifies

Tue May 16 16:26:19 CEST 2006

2006/5/16, Vaclav Kubart <vaclav.kubart at 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 at 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 at lists.iptel.org
> > >[mailto:serusers-bounces at lists.iptel.org] On Behalf Of samuel
> > >Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 7:13 PM
> > >To: Vaclav Kubart
> > >Cc: serusers at lists.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 at 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 at 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 at 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.
> > >_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> > >
>