File transfert using In Band Bytestream ( jep-0047 )

[misc@…]

Jep-0096 ( file transfer ) mandate the usage of two file transfer method, socks 5 ( already in gajim ) and in band bytestream ( jep-0047 ), but the second is not implemented at the moment.

Ibb is useful when you cannot use socks5, ie restricting firewall. I also think it is much easier to implement than socks5.

[dkirov]

You are right. However IBB cannot replace OBB, it can only be used for

small files. AFAIK only psi has support for it. There is an ongoning talk about "File Transfer Preview", IBB will be very handy for that. xmpppy includes [ http://trac.gajim.org/browser/trunk/src/common/xmpp/filetransfer.py plugin for ibb]. It needs little rework to use gajim sid and to send notification for transfer status - shouldn't be much work. Then we have to think of some criteria for choosing ibb as transfer method. I suggest files <= 8kb.

[anonymous]

Gajim needs to be able to fall back to this as a last resort.

If falling back it might be a good idea to warn the user before transferring large documents (> 100 KiB, perhaps), but the fall back is still needed. Some clients might have no connection to the public internet.

[js]

Server administrators would not be happy to see this and most of the XMPP community think that IBB file transfers should die. I'm voting for a WONTFIX.

[misc]

If a admin do not want to have users taking the bandwidth, I can configure the server for this, it would take me 5 minutes to filter this server side. So I think that's not a good reason to forbid it to people who want to use it.

For the moment, all my workmates and friends tell me that files transfers are unreliable, and always send me file by mail, and I think that IIB is one of the method that would perfectly work in such cases, especially for small files, as suggested by previous comment.

Limiting user choice

[marten]

 Juick.com users are able to post photos using only in-band transfer. A lot of users use gajim there. Please add this feature

[js]

This is DEFINITELY _NOT_ highest priority!

Btw, rather than implementing IBB, implementing Jingle File Transfers would make sense. IBB shouldn't be used at all.

[bojo42]

i justed wanted to note that altough IBB isn't very great other apps like Empathy and Pidgin implemented XEP-0047 and also XEP-0096. so while waiting some years until the Jingle FT draft is finally finished & implemented, Gajim is some what uncompatible with those other XMPP clients regarding FTs.

for instance using 0.12.1 from Ubuntu 9.04 i won't have the ability to accept FT from Pidgin users (also on Ubuntu 9.04) as i even doesn't get noticed. i believe the reason therefore is lacking IBB support.

[js]

i justed wanted to note that altough IBB isn't very great other apps like Empathy and Pidgin implemented XEP-0047 and also XEP-0096. so while waiting some years until the Jingle FT draft is finally finished & implemented, Gajim is some what uncompatible with those other XMPP clients regarding FTs.

This is nonsense, Gajim is not incompatible to Pidgin or Empathy. In fact, I can send files just fine and receive them just fine from and to Pidgin users. If there is no direct connection, Pidgin can fall back so a proxy65, for Empathy, I don't know.

for instance using 0.12.1 from Ubuntu 9.04 i won't have the ability to accept FT from Pidgin users (also on Ubuntu 9.04) as i even doesn't get noticed. i believe the reason therefore is lacking IBB support.

Strange, I receive files from Pidgin users all the time… Even from users behind NATs…

[Yann Leboulanger <asterix@…>]

(In [fb50cc8a9678]) ability to send / receive file using IBB based on xmpppy implementation. Fixes #2331