[JDEV] AT&T beating us to the punch..

[Michael D. Johnson]

I have to agree with temas on this one.  I have played with Tik, Tok, a
lot and when the HTTPS is ready for jabber, I will it too. I have never
ever been denied attachment to AOL servers.
Mike

temas wrote:
> 
> I'm still a strong contender that this is a load of malarky.  I've been playing with the AIM protocol for a LONG time now, and only one time have I not been
> able to connect, and that was when they simply tacked on the port you were
> connecting from to one of their connection strings.  Otherwise I have not had
> to modify libfaim at all.  I believe AOL has brainwashed us all into thinking
> that they are doing horrible things that they really aren't.  Then again it all
> just became clear to me.  Have fun, I'll go finish aim-trans.
> 
> --temas
> 
> Thomas Charron [tcharron at ductape.net] wrote:
> > Quoting Isotope2k at aol.com:
> > > In a message dated 12/9/99 11:47:11 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
> > > ebowersox at corp.webb.net writes:
> > > > Makes me wonder if a Jabber AIM transport is really a good idea, or if
> > > it's
> > > >  just an exercise in futility, as AOL seems determined to throw monkey
> > > >  wrenches into the works of anyone trying to interoperate with them...
> > > I'd say it really depends on how they are blocking the connections.
> > > If they are doing it based on the IP address of the servers- well, tech
> > > savvy AOLers can host servers too. :)  Furthermore, as more and more
> > > people add Jabber to their various offerings (it will happen, Jabber is
> > > a strong technology), you will see the widespread adoption of an
> > > open standard, making AIM the odd man out.
> >
> >   AIM uses an overflow bug to detect clients that aren't made by them..
> >
> >   Hrm.  Has anyone actually tried to look at what the overflow bug causes,
> > and 'emulate' it?
> >
> > > When Jabber is done, I don't imagine that the IETF standard will be
> > > too far behind.  Most of the major IM vendors are purported
> > > to claim that they will support that standard, as will Jabber.  That makes
> > > much of these actions a moot point.
> >
> >   We'll be up to 1.0 long before any IMPP standard is released.
> >
> >   Sooner then you'd think.. ;-P
> >
> > ---
> > Thomas Charron
> > << Wanted: One decent sig >>
> > << Preferably litle used  >>
> > << and stored in garage.  ?>>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > jdev mailing list
> > jdev at jabber.org
> > http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
> >
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature