Category Archives: jabber

Why I choose not to use WhatsApp, Viber et al

There are many messenger apps these days that have very similar features, and are widely used. I’d usually describe them as “modern” messengers. I choose not to use them. I sometimes get into discussions about why. I’ll update this post if I get new perspectives or if I find better ways to clarify my opinions.

Here are some anti-features from my perspective, widely (but not universally shared), that make me strongly prefer not using these messengers:

  • Uploading all contacts. Many modern messengers use your phone’s addressbook as the primary source for the contact list. This is, in principle, laudable. One source of contacts is a good idea1.

    However, to enable the distinction between contacts that do not use this messenger and those that do, the clients have opted to query their servers for this piece of information. To do so, they upload all your contacts, and see whether the phone number is connected to the service or not.

    Despite not having a signal of whether a contact is ‘weak’ or ‘strong’ (occasional and mainly formal interactions vs daily friendly interactions), messengers can use this to form social graphs. I don’t have a reason to believe they are doing this or exploiting this information, however, I’d prefer a smaller number of companies to have access to my contact list. I’m sure my contacts would prefer that as well.

    For this reason, I’ve chosen that the primary company that’ll have access to this is the one that already syncs my contacts and sees all my email: Google. This means I get restricted to Hangouts (which is mid-way between ‘classical’ and ‘modern’ messengers) or Allo (which is slick, but underused, and has other flaws from this list).

    • Workaround: Messengers, please let me choose not to upload all contacts. Please don’t tell me I cannot block iOS and Android from you grabbing all my contacts. Please let me share only some contacts with you, or manually enter the phone number I want to reach out to.
  • Phone numbers only, please. I use many devices. Counting off the top of my head, I use 82 ‘smart’ devices regularly and 43 sporadically. This is not counting all the operating systems I have on them: both my desktop and my old laptop have 3. How about browsers? Anything with OS X has at least Safari and Chrome.

    I change environments multiple times a day. I’ve changed countries. I could change my phone number. It’s not unreasonable that I expect my conversation to continue from one environment to the other. If I’m on my desktop, I strongly prefer not to have to take out my phone just to see that Jack has said “hi” without any other followup. And doing this while I’m dealing with a page or writing or updating a very convoluted test is very distracting. It could be an important message — should I really have to decide between 15s to get the phone and see the “hi”, making me distracted for the next 5-10min, or leaving a possibly important message unseen?

    Tying a messenger to one phone number and thus one device is ridiculous.

    • Non-workaround: Browser-based solutions. I could receive and send messages from my desktop — hurray? While I do want a web-based client to be available when I’m on a Chromebook, due to e2e they’re usually convoluted and require messages to go through your phone, only to go back through the provider’s servers (presumably re-encrypted) and to be presented in a web UI. I object to this convoluted solution on moral grounds. 🙂

      I also don’t expect I get to integrate with my desktop environment that well.

    • Non-workaround: Wearable devices. While I can see the messages quickly, I have to actually own one. My Moto 360 broke down long time ago, and I’m still waiting for a decent, affordable Android Wear 2.0 device to become available in Ireland. (If I need to get a new one, why not get a proper upgrade?)

    • Counter-example: iMessage. Yep, in place of a workaround, I’m giving a specific “modern messenger” solution. I can not only tie multiple phone numbers, but also multiple email addresses, all on multiple devices, to the same account. (formerly iChat), an OS X feature which integrates with iMessage, is a desktop, non-browser solution that neatly integrates with the OS as well.

      I would use this messenger much more if iMessage was available on non-Apple devices and on the web.

  • Ubiquitous e2e. In principle, I like encryption. It does come with huge costs. Most messengers that implement it (well) become terrible with syncing message archives, and become terrible storing them for prolonged periods of time.

    They also have to decide where to store the keys. To keep the whole contraption secure, they often choose a storage mechanism that makes it hard to exfiltrate the keys. This is a good thing — except it prevents sync from working, and it makes it hard to introduce new devices (or browsers!) into the mix. And as I said, I use many, many devices.

    Situations where I actually, genuinely care about e2e enough to break message sync, message archiving, and make provisioning new devices for the same account difficult or impossible — those situations are very rare. I can think of maybe 5-10 cases over the past 3 years, and I can’t even recall the specifics. Cases where I wanted to find details of an old conversation, or where I wanted to continue an old discussion, those are far more frequent.

    • Counter-example: iMessage as a service is doing somewhat well here again. I am just guessing, but it seems like, once provisioned, a message will be encrypted for a particular device’s key in addition to all other devices. If a device is under-used, the key gets phased out. Messages get synced while a device is provisioned.

      Where it’s not doing so well is in-browser support. Apple recently introduced Business Chat and iCloud syncing for messages. It seems to let third-party providers create integrations with iMessage, including web based. It’s for businesses only, from what I can tell!

    • Counter-example: What about, say, WhatsApp’s web UI? Link to your phone, and have all messages go through it; a secure solution, but which I object to morally. I was going to say “I have no idea how message sync interacts with e2e with WhatsApp”, but for me it would be a non-problem with WhatsApp, as either I’d use web UI (which would presumably fetch messages from the phone), or I would not have message sync (as only one phone has a particular phone number). Possibly the key and messages get backed up to Google Drive on Android, but that solves the problem of “I’m changing the phone”, not “I’m using multiple phone numbers and non-phone devices concurrently”.

    • Workaround: What I’d really like to see happen is optional e2e. At the very least, let users agree not to e2e, and reap the benefits of message sync, nice and slick web UI, easier provisioning of new devices. When I use XMPP, I don’t bother at all turning on OTR, OMEMO, or OpenGPG (mechanisms supported in Conversations, top of the line messenger for Android) — but I strongly care about support for Message Carbons (“deliver messages to all online clients”) and Message Archive Management (“archive messages on the server and let clients request the archive”). I own my domain, so I get the benefit of not being tied to a single provider. Friends who use my secondary domain are also welcome to request archive export should they choose to spin up their own server — I’ll gladly spend the time providing them this data. (I’ll also delete the data from their archives on my server, as well, but otherwise I’d expect that I can keep my own records of these chats.)

I could also simply not worry about these problems.

For example, my personal social graph is not going to be important or even a useful source of information to sell me things4. That said, I don’t know what all the contacts in my addressbook are up to. Do I want everyone to tie me to them? It probably does not matter, but I choose to draw the line there.

I could also choose to use the messengers only on one device, and ignore notifications that come while I am focused. I could choose to accept e2e and all the downsides it brings to the sync table. I could choose to use iMessage with my Apple-toting buddies (hint: there aren’t many!). I could choose to install Facebook Messenger, tolerate battery drain, and tolerate having an additional company have access to my communications.

All that said… I don’t get that many benefits from any of these messengers. I can easily reach people I care with XMPP, Hangouts or even SMS. If SMS fails, I can, occasionally, even reactivate the Facebook account and reach out to people using Facebook Messenger on the desktop. I don’t have a good reason to compromise, or to figure out a workaround such as setting up an XMPP transport for WhatsApp. People who happen to be using WhatsApp — I can reach them through SMS as well, and often through Hangouts as well.

  1. Android allowed the apps to do it the other way around, too; applications should integrate with the Contacts app. In practice, social network apps, even if they integrated with Android’s contacts, chose to remove the integration many years ago. This is disappointing. 
  2. Phones: Nexus 6P (personal), iPhone 7 (work). Tablets: iPad Air (personal). Computers: desktop, Macbook Pro 2016, Digital Ocean VPS (personal), workstation, HP Chromebook (work). Other: Nvidia Shield Android TV, Samsung 6400 TV, QNAP TS-509 NAS w/ debian (personal). 
  3. Phones: Nexus 5, Jolla (personal). Tablets: original iPad w/ iOS 5.1.1 (personal), Nexus 7 (work). Computers: Macbook unibody late 2009, Chromebook (personal). 
  4. I mean, I rarely buy exactly the same product just because a friend has it. 

Tip for XMPP users: adjust your priority!

To declare which of my connections to my XMPP server has the ‘most important’ and ‘most chattable’ status, I use XMPP’s <priority /> mechanism.

Basics of XMPP connections

XMPP connection is actually two streams of XML, one going from the client to the server, and the other from the server to the client. (If your client exposes a feature typically called “XML Console”, use it to see the traffic.) Each XMPP connection has a “resource” string attached to it (and generally requested by the client — though the server can opt to override it). Typically, clients will set it to a random string, to the client name, or to the hostname. Together with your account name (“Jabber ID”), resource forms a globally-unique way to reach you in the XMPP network; for example:

Basics of XMPP presences

Each XMPP connection’s status text and status type are declared using a <presence /> tag. Just an empty <presence /> tag means “My status type is ‘online’, with no status text and with priority set to zero”. To specify each of these, according to RFC3921’s section 2.2.2, you add extra tags inside the <presence />1:

  <status>This is my status</status>

The <presence /> will be broadcast to users subscribed to them, whom you authorized to receive them.

How priority is used

The <priority /> of a <presence /> is used by clients for a variety of things, including prioritizing which status to display to users. And, even more importantly, servers use <priority /> to determine where to deliver <message />s that are directed towards a bare JID, and not towards a full JID. (A bare JID does not include the resource string, and thus describes an account; a full JID includes a resource string, and thus described a connection.)

Servers will deliver <message />s aimed at a bare JID to all connections that have the top priority. For example, if you have the following connections:

Resource Status Priority
GajimAtWork online 15
PidginAtWork online 15
OldPhone online 14
NewPhone online 14
GajimAtHome away 2
Tablet away 1
Webmail online 1

you will receive the message to GajimAtWork and PidginAtWork. (Specifics of this may be overridden by the server, especially if some XEP2 such as ‘carbon copies’ is in use.) See more information in RFC3921, section 11.1 which discusses how the server should handle incoming stanzas (incl. those directed at bare JID).

And let’s say you absolutely don’t want to be disturbed to a certain device, unless this device is directly contacted (by specifying full JID). In that case, specifying a negative priority (say, -1) is handy, which tells the server not to deliver the message at all, even if it’s the top priority. You can still initiate outgoing chats; receiving a message commonly makes the client switch to sending to a bare JID from which it was received.

How priority is useful

Many of the better clients let you associate a priority with a status type; that is, if you set your status type (<show />) to dnd3, you can declare that your <priority /> should also change to 20; and if you set your status type to online (that is, <show /> is missing), your <priority /> should change to 40.

Combined with the fact that, all things equal, I would prefer to answer to incoming chats on my desktop, I began using the following setup in clients that support the aforementioned functionality:

show Usual name in UI Device type Priority
chat Free for chat desktop 50
none Available desktop 30
dnd Busy desktop 25
away Away desktop 10
xa Extended Away desktop 2

For mobile, just decrease by one:

show Usual name in UI Device type Priority
chat Free for chat mobile 49
none Available mobile 29
dnd Busy mobile 24
away Away mobile 9
xa Extended Away mobile 1

What happens if your client does not support <priority/ >?

Useful clients which don’t support setting <priority /> — for example, Conversations for Android (source) — will have priority set to zero. Such a client, however, will be useful mainly because it supports and uses replacement XEPs such as XEP-0280: Message Carbons, which will ensure the message is still delivered to that device. There will be dark sorcery involving XEP-0333: Chat Markers which will help to reduce the number of devices that are making noises, similar to experience in Hangouts.

Some say statuses and priority are not useful

Some say statuses and priority are not useful. I respect this opinion, but my personal experience with Hangouts where exactly this is the norm tells me otherwise. I’d rather automate declaring my status than have it disappear from my contacts’ feeds. “Locked my workstation? It’s 12:00-14:00? Probably at lunch.” and similar personalized heuristics. “I’ve been toying with my phone for more than 5 min? I am probably free for chat — but do tell the contacts that I am on my phone.”

That said, I do like and appreciate much of the modern experiences certain statusless client(s) have. There is something to be said for simply receiving messages where they should arrive and notify based on actual activity. I like the simplicity of it.

Then again, if I am at work, I probably don’t want to chat with you; how will non-personalized client know that I’m busy out of the box? Or even more importantly, how will it relay that to my contacts? Can I more simply teach my phone to shut up based on my personal daily routine?

shrug I think I can. Your mileage may vary.

  1. <presence />s are used for more than this even in base RFCs. They can be directed towards one
    specific JID, instead of server just broadcasting them. This can in turn be used as a mechanism
    to declare that you would like to subscribe to a particular user’s presences. But, this is a
    discussion on <priority /> tag, so refer to the RFC for more information. 

  2. XEP: XMPP Extension Protocol. 
  3. dnd maps to ‘busy` in UI. 

Google killing XMPP federation with their Google Hangouts?

According to the Ars Technica article on Hangouts, we can expect Google to drop support for XMPP federation.

We should apparently be happy that Google is not dropping XMPP client-to-server connections.

The instant messaging space is apparently turning into a duopoly of Microsoft’s Skype and Google’s Hangouts with everyone else shoved to the sidelines. I’m not counting Facebook Chat as a serious alternative, and iMessage is not intended as an instant messaging service.

I hopefully don’t have to point out how much this frustrates and annoys me. Google is turning out to be worse than Microsoft ever was: they’re actively backpedaling on their past promises. They’re backstabbing the “open”. Scratch that — they’re throwing a stake through open’s heart, ripping it in pieces, then gorging on its still beating remains. Instead of reading RSS through Reader, we’re supposed to read custom posts via the closed and locked down Google+. They are killing iGoogle. They’re basically killing the open web and open Internet, while at the same time paying lip service to open.

Android, which is just-enough-Linux-but-not-really. Rich authorship markup, which requires two-way linking to Google+ instead of using the semantic web techniques.

I’ll keep on looking for ways to back out of Google ecosystem as much as possible. What’s next — Gmail that can’t send emails out?

libjingle with your own signaling or your own XMPP library

Just sharing the link here, since I was googling for far too long to dig it out.

How To Use STUN In Applications

It’s surprising this is found as a part of the manual for Maemo, the fantastic OS that moved in the right direction, but was practically abandoned by Nokia.

NOTE: This is apparently a guide for the outdated libjingle 0.3.0. I can’t find any guide for the new version of libjingle.

Facebook Chat on Jabber

If you use Facebook and XMPP, rejoice. You can now get spammed via your favorite Jabber client: iChat, Pidgin, Adium, Psi, Finch, Meebo or any other that allows you to configure custom server (gtalk not included).

Federationing not supported.

Probably a fail for privacy, but a win for openness.


Port: 5222
Allow plaintext authentication: No

Your username is your “vanity URL” suffix, for example firstlast in – so create this alias if you didn’t already.

Meebo and Jabber

In case you didn’t know, Meebo has its own Jabber server. If you want to log into your Meebo account without a Javascript-capable browser just to contact your Meebo buddies (meaning you won’t be logging into MSN, etc.) you can just connect to Jabber domain “” with your username. That is, ““. Notice the .ORG instead of .COM.

Since I don’t usually use Meebo for contacting buddies, I can see one much greater benefit here: you can be contacted using MeeboMe Widgets without using Meebo itself. Great for providing tech support in case you need something like that, especially if it’s possible to log in from multiple workstations into same Jabber account like with Gtalk. I have yet not tried if this is possible, but I sincerely hope it is.

Meebo has just gotten perfect for me 😉