| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
... | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
This most likely was copied from the handling of <retract/>, where it actually
is required by the spec (XEP-0060 ?7.2.2.1), but this attribute doesn?t exist
for purge.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
(thanks mrdoctorwho)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
How did this even happen?
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Should this XEP-0398 behavior even be covered here?
The original lines came from a recording.
|
| | |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Weeds out "Example Certificate" and the like, which are uninteresting
for this function.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
It triggers on bidi-related routing where this to/from is flipped.
Removing since I don't think we have ever seen this potential bug.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
incoming traffic
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
parity with s2sin
Making s2sin and -out look more alike in preparation for bidi support
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
This will allow representing connections that go both directions
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Where did these messages come from???
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
These were added by s2sout.lib
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
They were not using TLS before. With a36af4570b39 TLS context creation
will succeed even without a certificate, so TLS will be offered, but
since there is no certificate it does not work.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
This is needed for SNI where certificates are in separate
per-hostname contexts, not the main one.
If there is a cert, it will still require a corresponding key.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
net.resolver.basic passes this 'extra' field along to server.addclient
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Code added in 75d2874502c3, 9a905888b96c and adc0672b700e uses this field.
See #409 and #1408
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
This lets code attach some extra data to be attached to client
connections.
|
| | |\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
This tries to flush data to the underlying sockets when receiving
writes. This should lead to fewer timer objects being around. On the
other hand, this leads to more and smaller writes which may translate to
more TCP/IP packets being sent, depending on how the kernel handles
this. This trades throughput for lower latency.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
The changes in the temporary fork were merged into mainline luasec ca
2013 and included in the 0.5 release in 2014.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Affiliation data is passed as a loop variable so no need to retrieve it
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
The original intent of having kEDH before kEECDH was that if a `dhparam`
file was specified, this would be interpreted as a preference by the
admin for old and well-tested Diffie-Hellman key agreement over newer
elliptic curve ones. Otherwise the faster elliptic curve ciphersuites
would be preferred. This didn't really work as intended since this
affects the ClientHello on outgoing s2s connections, leading to some
servers using poorly configured kEDH.
With Debian shipping OpenSSL settings that enforce a higher security
level, this caused interoperability problems with servers that use DH
params smaller than 2048 bits. E.g. jabber.org at the time of this
writing has 1024 bit DH params.
MattJ says
> Curves have won, and OpenSSL is less weird about them now
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
A protocol built on this API now allows showing a list of unread
conversations with a counter, ordered by either oldest or newest
message, along with the text body itself.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
For completeness along with most recent timestamp. Might be nice to be
able to order by oldest unread message.
|