Hi,
What did you mean by
following:
>Instead of
>>
>> if
(authorize_message("http://localhost/xcap"))
{
>
>there should be
>
>if
(authorize_message("im-rules.xml")){
Btw, did you receive my email with
following questions :
>> I have the same problem with notification
and other presence messages with you.
>> Can you tell me which
Linux distribution you are using Ser on ?
>> Also please include
version numbers for libraries that are required by Ser.
>>
>>
I am trying to find similarities between yours and my ser
server.
Regards,
ilker
-----Original Message-----
From:
serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@iptel.org]
On Behalf Of samuel
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 7:13 PM
To: Vaclav
Kubart
Cc: serusers@lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] PA error sending
notifies
Let's see if I can finish the e-mail before gmail decides it's
enough...:P
006/5/15, samuel <samu60@gmail.com>:
> Following
with the handbook...
>
> the authorize message in the sample
confgi files has as parameter the
> xcap root while it should have the xml
file containing the auth.rules.
Instead of
>
> if
(authorize_message("http://localhost/xcap"))
{
there should be
if
(authorize_message("im-rules.xml")){
>
>
>
>
2006/5/15, samuel <samu60@gmail.com>:
> > First of all, I have to
thank you for the time you spent writing the
> > handbook, it's really
really helpfull....I wish all SER related
> > parts had this
docs..
> >
> > I'll try to get familiar with the code of the
notifications and I'll
> > try to find something....which I don't thing
so :P. I'll also merge
> > the two functionalities (proxy + presence)
in a unique config file
> > to see if it works.
> > I hope I
can provide more info these following days.
> >
> > About the
missing things in the presence handbook, probably the most
> >
important is the new xcap module because in the sample config files
> >
it's missing.
> > Another thing is that in the XCAP structure
description, the
> > im-rules directory is missing, which might lead
to
> > misunderstandings. I downloaded the structure from the iptel's
ftp
> > and inside the im-rules there were several files corresponding
to
> > presence-rules which should be either removed or updated with
the
> > im-rules namespaces and removing the whitelist.
>
>
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Samuel.
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> > 2006/5/15, Vaclav Kubart
<vaclav.kubart@iptel.org>:
> > > Hi,
> > > this
problem I'm trying to solve with Ilker Aktuna. I try to
> > >
simulate it on my machine and let you know. Or if you solve it, please let me
know.
> > > :-)
> > >
> > > Please, could
you tell me, what things you were missing in
> > > presence
handbook? I'm trying to do it as useful as possible and
> > >
whatever ideas are welcome...
> > >
> >
> Vaclav
> >
>
> > > On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 01:38:02PM +0200, samuel
wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > >
> I recently had a few hours and start installing the presence
> >
> > staff and I have to say that I have it amost workign thanks to
>
> > > the presence handbook, the mailing list and, obviously, a
little
> > > > bit of code review..:P
> > >
>
> > > > I have two SER instances, the "proxy" and the
"presence server"
> > > > (both with last CVS code) co-located in
the same host and I have
> > > > an issue when the "presence
server" tries to send the NOTIFY
> > > > requests. Below there's
an attched log showing the problem (on
> > > > IP a.b.c.d I've
got the two instances):
> > > >
> > > > 3(30682)
DEBUG notify.c:378: sending winfo notify
> > > > 3(30682) DEBUG
notify.c:383: winfo document created
> > > > 3(30682) DEBUG
notify.c:391: creating headers
> > > > 3(30682) DEBUG
notify.c:398: headers created
> > > > 3(30682)
DEBUG:tm:t_uac:
> > > >
next_hop=<sip:a.b.c.d;transport=tcp;ftag=c77b3f33;lr=on>
> > >
> 3(30682) t_uac: no socket found
> > > > 3(30682) DEBUG
notify.c:402: request sent with result -7
> > > > 3(30682) ERROR:
notify.c:404: Can't send watcherinfo
> > > > notification
(-7)
> > > >
> > > > This problem appears in other
places, not only in the
> > > > notifications for winfo so
probably there's somthing in the
> > > > selection of the
outgoing socket directing to the local IP.
> > > >
> >
> > >From the proxy part I just ust t_forward_nonack for the
"SIMPLE"
> > > > messages with record route....maybe adding the
port in the
> > > > record route should
help?