https://providers.xmpp.net/ finally is online:
"The project also provides the evaluation machine-readable. Client developers can integrate them in their applications. We approach this topic from a user-centric perspective and question what enables a good first start with #XMPP when possibly coming from other environments.
We created a separate website to present the results in a nice view. That way, it is convenient to read them. Feel free to take a look: https://providers.xmpp.net"
@KinmenRisingProject https://providers.xmpp.net/provider/jabber.de/ says:
Why not category "A"
Sharing files is not allowed up to a size that is large enough
@kirschwipfel Yeah, but unfortunately my website looks not as good as it should be... ;)
@ij How did conversations.im end up with a bad rating?
@raucao It's explained in the detailed view and additionally the needed information needs to be in a publicly reachable/visible page on the website.
@ij How is "not free of charge" a bad thing? A service that doesn't charge is often not sustainable and prone to being shut down earlier than a sustainable one. Also, that particular service is now actually free of charge. But that's a hell of a bad reason for downgrading a service at all. I see it as a positive marker, and free service without a sustainable funding model should be a negative one.
The other reasons are also nowhere close to justifying a "do not use" rating.
@raucao I'm not involved in this project, I'm just listed there.
However, it's just a list and the basic idea is (afaik) that App developers can implement this list and also display it differently, like "Do you want a) free or b) paid provider?"
@ij OK, thanks. I'll see if I can give feedback to the maintainers somewhere then. But good to have the data available for app development for sure!
@ij
I heard that conversations.im is free of charge now, but I'm not a member of it, and I don't know for sure.
@ij thank you for this project. I miss my xmpp provider honigdachse.de . why it isnt on the list?
@lauchmelder I'm not the one behind that page, just someone whose server is on that list.
So, maybe better ask the team running this service... :-)
@ij It's a noble thing, but the complicated docs for new submissions is going to discourage people from making the effort of submitting their server.
@hund I'm not involved in this project, just listed there.
Yeah, it's a lot of work to get listed, but then again: this might differentiate "serious" providers from those that are less committed to XMPP...
@ij what would be awesome if one could directly see if the server is hosted green.
https://www.thegreenwebfoundation.org/ is providing an API for that. Similar as the greenfediverse project is doing it: https://greenfediverse.codeberg.page/green-instances/
created an "issue" for that: https://github.com/xsf/xmpp-providers-website/issues/42
@ij thank you, much appreciated. Why is jabber.de in the C category? It looks to be the same as for ex 5222.de...