headers
Dennis Petschull | 2 Aug 2009 17:21
Picon

Anonymous users versus registered users in ejabberd

Dear all,

Sorry for warming up this rather old topic, but I'm faced with similar 
problems at the moment.
I am successfuly running ejabberd-2.0.3 on ubuntu-server, and also have set up 
a shared roster with an "everybody"-group ( <at> all <at> )

If I now log in via SASL Anonymous, I can see the anonymous user online in the 
web-admin-interface. In the roster of the anonymous user, the "everybody" 
group shows up, but it is empty. Also, the anonymous user does not show up in 
the "everybody"-group for any other user of the vhost.

So, repeating Marks question, what is the expected behaviour of ejabberd when 
an sasl anonymous user logs in?

 <at> Mark: What have you done, that the anonymous user has all the other users on 
his roster?

Thanks!

Cheers,
Dennis

--
Dennis Petschull
http://www.two4.it

On Fri, Jun 20 2008 at 4:12 PM, mark peleus <mark.peleus at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 502 comments |
headers
Mickaël Rémond | 2 Aug 2009 22:07
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Anonymous users versus registered users in ejabberd

Hello,

Shared roster are not supposed to be added to anonymous users. Shared  
roster are intended only for official and registered users of the  
server.

-- 
Mickaël Rémond
  http://www.process-one.net/

Le 2 août 09 à 17:21, Dennis Petschull a écrit :

> Dear all,
>
> Sorry for warming up this rather old topic, but I'm faced with similar
> problems at the moment.
> I am successfuly running ejabberd-2.0.3 on ubuntu-server, and also  
> have set up
> a shared roster with an "everybody"-group ( <at> all <at> )
>
> If I now log in via SASL Anonymous, I can see the anonymous user  
> online in the
> web-admin-interface. In the roster of the anonymous user, the  
> "everybody"
> group shows up, but it is empty. Also, the anonymous user does not  
> show up in
> the "everybody"-group for any other user of the vhost.
>
> So, repeating Marks question, what is the expected behaviour of  
> ejabberd when
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 502 comments |
headers
Dennis Petschull | 2 Aug 2009 23:25
Picon

Re: Anonymous users versus registered users in ejabberd

Hi,

Ok, but if I use the following config:
{host_config, "example.com", [{auth_method, [internal, anonymous]},
                                     {allow_multiple_connections, false},
                                     {anonymous_protocol, both}]}.

Now, if I understand right, both internal and anonymous users can log in using 
example.com accounts, and both have the everybody-group in their roster. But 
for anonymous users, this group is always empty and for internal users, they 
don't see the anonymous users in this group.

So you are saying that this is the expected behaviour? Then why does the 
everybody-group appear in the anonymous users roster in the first place, if it 
is always empty?

Cheers,
Dennis

--
Dennis Petschull
http://www.two4.it

On Sunday 02 August 2009 22:07:48 Mickaël Rémond wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Shared roster are not supposed to be added to anonymous users. Shared
> roster are intended only for official and registered users of the
> server.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
William Edney | 3 Aug 2009 01:51
Gravatar

Strange usage of BOSH

Folks -

I have kind of a strange use case for BOSH. Jack Moffitt and I  
discussed it a bit (thanks Jack!) and I realized that step #1, in some  
sense, was to make sure that ejabberd could do this.

What I would like to do is to use the BOSH protocol to make a XMPP  
'component' available to an ejabberd server. In other words, I want to  
write a XEP-114 compliant 'server component' in JavaScript that would  
live in the browser, but to the ejabberd server it would look like a  
server-side component.

I have my own JS library that implements XEP-124/XEP-206 and have done  
a reasonable job of factoring (well, it might need a bit of work) so  
that the low-level XEP-124 transport layer is separate from the higher  
level XEP-206 stuff. This library can currently communicate well with  
the regular mod_http_bind module in ejabberd using the standard  
client<->server workflow that most people use BOSH for.

I assume that to make this work I would use the XEP-124 functionality,  
but then layer XEP-114 on top of it.

A few questions:

#1. I assume that the XEP-124 part of BOSH does not preclude this from  
working, in theory. Right or wrong?

#2. Does ejabberd's BOSH implementation, as currently coded in  
mod_http_bind, preclude this functionality (i.e. are there assumptions  
in that code that would prevent it from working)?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Mickaël Rémond | 3 Aug 2009 08:36
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Anonymous users versus registered users in ejabberd

I think the bug is that the every body group is showing.

Le 2 août 09 à 23:25, Dennis Petschull a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> Ok, but if I use the following config:
> {host_config, "example.com", [{auth_method, [internal, anonymous]},
>                                     {allow_multiple_connections,  
> false},
>                                     {anonymous_protocol, both}]}.
>
> Now, if I understand right, both internal and anonymous users can  
> log in using
> example.com accounts, and both have the everybody-group in their  
> roster. But
> for anonymous users, this group is always empty and for internal  
> users, they
> don't see the anonymous users in this group.
>
> So you are saying that this is the expected behaviour? Then why does  
> the
> everybody-group appear in the anonymous users roster in the first  
> place, if it
> is always empty?
>
> Cheers,
> Dennis
>
> --
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Gabriel Rossetti | 3 Aug 2009 17:56

Re: strange stanza size problem w/ "max_stanza_size, infinity"

Gabriel Rossetti wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a strange problem w/ transfering large msgs w/ ejabberd. I set 
> "max_stanza_size, infinity", and it works great locally (same network) 
> on my test server, but if I try the same thing with a remote server, 
> exact same config file, same ejabberd version (2.0.5-1.1), same OS 
> (linux), same OS version (ubuntu 8.04), any msgs longer than 10779 
> characters get my client disconnected. Is there some sort of implicit 
> size limit applied to clients when these are not on the same network 
> (e.g. connected over the internet)?
>
> Thank you,
> Gabriel 

I tried to set "max_stanza_size" to something smaller than 10179 and
then send a msg that has a size greater than that limit but smaller than
10179 and it works, if I the msg is greater than 10179 then it doesn't
work, is "max_stanza_size" broken?

Thank you,
Gabriel
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Badlop | 3 Aug 2009 18:18
Picon

Re: strange stanza size problem w/ "max_stanza_size, infinity"

2009/8/3 Gabriel Rossetti <gabriel.rossetti <at> arimaz.com>:
> I tried to set "max_stanza_size" to something smaller than 10179 and
> then send a msg that has a size greater than that limit but smaller than
> 10179 and it works, if I the msg is greater than 10179 then it doesn't
> work, is "max_stanza_size" broken?

Not broken. The stanza size calculation is implemented to be efficient
(primary objective) and precise (secondary goal). As it isn't 100%
precise, max_stanza_size is not guaranteed to get the exact size of
each stanza, only an approximation.

The ejabberd Guide 2.0.5 says:

> {max_stanza_size, Size}
> This option specifies an approximate maximum size in bytes of XML stanzas.
> Approximate, because it is calculated with the precision of one block of readed data.

Related links:

http://www.process-one.net/en/ejabberd/guide_en#listened

max_stanza_size not working in mod_http_bind?
http://lists.jabber.ru/pipermail/ejabberd/2009-April/004871.html

Change direction of rounding when calculating size in xml_stream
https://support.process-one.net/browse/EJAB-928

---
Badlop
ProcessOne
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Gabriel Rossetti | 3 Aug 2009 18:35

Re: strange stanza size problem w/ "max_stanza_size, infinity"

Badlop wrote:
> 2009/8/3 Gabriel Rossetti <gabriel.rossetti <at> arimaz.com>:
>   
>> I tried to set "max_stanza_size" to something smaller than 10179 and
>> then send a msg that has a size greater than that limit but smaller than
>> 10179 and it works, if I the msg is greater than 10179 then it doesn't
>> work, is "max_stanza_size" broken?
>>     
>
> Not broken. The stanza size calculation is implemented to be efficient
> (primary objective) and precise (secondary goal). As it isn't 100%
> precise, max_stanza_size is not guaranteed to get the exact size of
> each stanza, only an approximation.
>
>
> The ejabberd Guide 2.0.5 says:
>
>   
>> {max_stanza_size, Size}
>> This option specifies an approximate maximum size in bytes of XML stanzas.
>> Approximate, because it is calculated with the precision of one block of readed data.
>>     
>
>
> Related links:
>
> http://www.process-one.net/en/ejabberd/guide_en#listened
>
> max_stanza_size not working in mod_http_bind?
> http://lists.jabber.ru/pipermail/ejabberd/2009-April/004871.html
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Dennis Petschull | 3 Aug 2009 20:59
Picon

Re: Anonymous users versus registered users in ejabberd

Hm.
So, if one wants to create a 1on1-webchat, where the web-user logs in 
anonymously via web-interface and the other user using the internal mechanism 
via desktop-client, both users will not be able to see each others presence.

Does anyone know of any solution/workaround for this kind of situation?

Cheers,
Dennis

--
Dennis Petschull
http://www.two4.it

On Monday 03 August 2009 08:36:12 you wrote:
> I think the bug is that the every body group is showing.
>
> Le 2 août 09 à 23:25, Dennis Petschull a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > Ok, but if I use the following config:
> > {host_config, "example.com", [{auth_method, [internal, anonymous]},
> >                                     {allow_multiple_connections,
> > false},
> >                                     {anonymous_protocol, both}]}.
> >
> > Now, if I understand right, both internal and anonymous users can
> > log in using
> > example.com accounts, and both have the everybody-group in their
> > roster. But
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Mickaël Rémond | 3 Aug 2009 21:41
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Anonymous users versus registered users in ejabberd

Hello,

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:59 +0200, "Dennis Petschull"
<d.petschull <at> two4.it> wrote:
> Hm.
> So, if one wants to create a 1on1-webchat, where the web-user logs in 
> anonymously via web-interface and the other user using the internal
> mechanism 
> via desktop-client, both users will not be able to see each others
> presence.
> Does anyone know of any solution/workaround for this kind of situation?

They can see each user presence if they add each other to the roster and
accept the contact.

You can also use groupchat as a proxy for that.
I am not sure we have enought information to reply more precisely to
what you want to do.
There is probably several solutions.

-- 
Mickaël Rémond
 http://www.process-one.net/
--

-- 
  Mickaël Rémond
  mickael.remond <at> process-one.net
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane