[jdev] JDev Digest, Vol 74, Issue 17

[Karsten Jeschkies]

> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 12:01:16 -0800
> From: Waqas Hussain <waqas20 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [jdev] Openfire won't let IQs pass.
> To: "Jabber/XMPP software development list" <jdev at jabber.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <7fc4fa881003271301j6f74f101ncb762b096428eb26 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 3:11 AM, Karsten Jeschkies <jeskar at web.de> wrote:
>>
>> We were not always able to send IQ stanzas from our component through
>> our Openfire Jabber Server to clients. Somehow everything worked when
>> we use our implementation of the JaberRPC XEP but when we send IQs to
>> clients who haven't send a request before the clients would not
>> receive the IQ. Even when the client send and IQ and the answer had a
>> slightly different "from"-attribute the IQ would not arrive. Our
>> component always received all IQ stanazs. We "solved" this by just
>> sending messages when the component had to send unrequested
>> information to the client. Now I am sure that there is no bug on our
>> side. And I am even more sure that there is no error on the Jabber
>> Server side. So my only explanation would be that clients are by
>> protocol only allowed to receive IQ stanzas if they send an IQ request
>> before and the answer has the same ID as the request and the receiver
>> (here our component) of the request as "from"-attribute. Openfire
>> would then just not let our IQ pass except the JabberRPC answers which
>> would fulfill the requirements I mentioned.
>>
>
> When you sent an IQ to a client which hadn't sent you one, which JID
> did you send to? The user's bare JID or the full JID? If you sent to
> the bare JID, then the user will not receive them. IQs sent to the
> user's bare JID are handled by the server itself, not sent to clients.

We used only the bare JID without a resource. So I guess it was the
combination of not using the set-type and having just the bare JID as
receiving address. I am happy that my speculations were about right. I
think the message tag fits our needs better than the iq tag since we
have something like a crippled PEP implementation.

Thanks for your help,
Karsten Jeschkies