[Serusers] RE: Authorizing IM requests

Wed May 31 09:52:42 CEST 2006

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 at iptel.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 9:29 AM
To: İlker Aktuna (Koç.net)
Cc: samuel; serusers at 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 at 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 at iptel.org]
> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 4:48 PM
> To: ?lker Aktuna (Koç.net)
> Cc: samuel; serusers at 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 at iptel.org]
> > Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 4:40 PM
> > To: ?lker Aktuna (Koç.net)
> > Cc: samuel; serusers at 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 at gmail.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 5:26 PM
> > > To: Vaclav Kubart
> > > Cc: ?lker Aktuna (Koç.net); serusers at iptel.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Serusers] PA error sending notifies
> > >
> > > 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
> > > > > >

 <http://387555.sigclick.mailinfo.com/sigclick/06090304/030C4A09/02014803/15141696.jpg>
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20060531/30ab4369/attachment.htm>