[Operators] Future of XMPP Re: The Google issue

Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet.org
Sun Dec 1 03:00:49 UTC 2013


On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 02:56:48PM +0100, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> Yes, it would be a vast improvement in case it is implemented. That is
> the reason why I support the manifesto. But what really is needed are
> e2e encryption (and the manifesto says so at the end) and the
> obfuscation of social relations.

Hmm.  I assume by the latter you're referring to things like encrypted 
presence subscription/notification (and other administrative S2S stuff)?

> And I recently learned that some of the P2P proponents are also
> against interoperability with XMPP because it is a federated protocol
> which is relying on servers... :-/

Nevermind that every single publically visible P2P service relies on 
some sort of server (or "supernode" or "tracker" or whatever).  And 
short of going full TOR (Which I expect be de-facto banned before too 
long, in the name of TheChildren(tm)) you're still going to be 
vulnerable to traffic analysis which 9/10 times is more useful than the 
actual message contents.

To paraphrase the old maxim -- Those who do not understand P2P are 
doomed to reimplement it. Poorly.

 - Solomon
-- 
Solomon Peachy        		       pizza at shaftnet dot org
Delray Beach, FL                          ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/operators/attachments/20131130/cacd1ad3/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Operators mailing list