[Operators] How can I tell if gtalk thinks it authoritative for my XMPP domain?

Jesse Thompson jesse.thompson at doit.wisc.edu
Thu Feb 26 08:30:10 CST 2009


That's great to hear.  Thanks Justin.

Jesse

Justin Uberti wrote:
> Thanks for the technical compliments. 
> 
> Regarding the issues you mention with Google Apps Team Edition, we 
> recognize the concerns here. The SRV check is less than perfect, so we 
> are disabling Talk for new Team Edition domains until we can implement a 
> solution that doesn't cause problems for XMPP federation.
> 
> --justin
> 
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Jesse Thompson 
> <jesse.thompson at doit.wisc.edu <mailto:jesse.thompson at doit.wisc.edu>> wrote:
> 
>     Dave Cridland wrote:
> 
>         On Tue Feb 24 19:50:32 2009, Brian Cully wrote:
> 
>                This is whack. As an alternative, how about you don't
>             host the domain  at all until you see an SRV pointing to
>             google's servers? It's just  not good enough to allow anyone
>             out there to hijack service just as  long as they get to it
>             first. If someone points the SRV record, that's  a good sign
>             that someone with real authority actually wants to use  your
>             services.
> 
> 
>         Don't be ridiculous. I mean, anyone would think you meant that
>         the DNS was more authoritative than Google.
> 
> 
>     hehe.  If Google is the new DNS, then I wonder if "google bombs" can
>     be used to hijack other domains.  :-)
> 
>     Seriously though, Google Apps already has a domain authorization
>     process that they just aren't using for Talk.  No need to use SRV
>     records.
> 
>     Stepping back, I'm sure that the quality of the xmpp service that
>     Google Talk runs is great.  Give the technical guys credit.
> 
>     That said, Google's domain management aggressiveness is doing the
>     Google Talk team a disservice by undermining Google's
>     trustworthiness.  We actually considered using Google Talk for part
>     of our IM solution, but ultimately decided that privacy and local
>     control was too important.
> 
>     Google would probably get more business if they addressed those
>     issues directly.  Instead, they are attempting to extort domains
>     into signing up, which only proves that we made the right decision
>     in the first place.
> 
>     Jesse
> 
> 

-- 
   Jesse Thompson
   Division of Information Technology, University of Wisconsin-Madison
   Email/IM: jesse.thompson at doit.wisc.edu
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3340 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/operators/attachments/20090226/37eb87d4/attachment.bin 


More information about the Operators mailing list