[Operators] Remove old unused accounts?
stpeter at stpeter.im
Fri Dec 11 11:44:27 CST 2009
On 12/10/09 5:21 PM, Mihael Pranjić wrote:
> Am Freitag, 11. Dezember 2009 01:03:51 schrieben Sie:
>> On 12/10/09 4:55 PM, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
>>> Am 10.12.2009 um 23:50 schrieb Mihael Pranjić:
>>>> It clearly does sound like a sane idea. This would solve the problem
>>>> of having
>>>> multiple users use the same JID after it was deleted. But think of
>>>> jabber accounts that were created, used for short time and then left
>>>> lying aroung on
>>>> the server. This includes unnecessarily created accounts and so on.
>>>> However it
>>>> is defined, on most public services there are many jabber accounts
>>>> just lying
>>>> around, unused. This makes it impossible for someone who would really
>>>> like to
>>>> use the same JID to register it, as he does not have the email adress.
>>>> In short there wont be two different people using the same jabber
>>>> regardless of the fact that there may be "garbage" accounts that are not
>>>> really used. This makes it impossible tot get the jid, even for the
>>>> people who
>>>> would really use it.
>>>> Captcha could prevent an amount of "garbage" accounts, but is not 100%
>>>> Anyone can still create accounts and not use them.
>>> Well, you could make a difference between accounts that have been used
>>> for a while and accounts that have been registered but never used. For
>>> example, if the user never logged in two weeks after it has been
>>> created, it is unlikely that the account has ever been used properly -
>>> in this case, I guess it is safe to remove it, as I don't think someone
>>> who just registered account will get important privileges anywhere.
>> Says who?
>> I tell all the people who matter that I'm creating a new account because
>> I'm tired of having 2400 people in my roster at the old account, on day
>> one I become a room owner for a bunch of chatrooms, then I go offline
>> for a two-week vacation. I come home and my account is gone. What gives?
>> Look, we can spin out weird scenarios all day.
> Yeah we can, but going through some scenarios can show up security issues
> related to this. If the discussion is not welcome we can stop *LOL*
> If no one thinks this is a topic that should be discussed we can just close
Discussion is good, but I don't think we're making any progress here.
In any case I'll think about this for the jabber.org service, but we
have more pressing issues to work on right now.
> In my opinion though this issue comes with XMPP and it wont go away. Its
> related to its design. You just can not identify someone 100%. This is the
> same with email too. Maybe something with/like openpgp can be figured out. Any
> kind of unique signature. Openpgp can be used in client to client chats, but
> MUCs dont support unique identifying through something like openpgp. Once you
> prove a users pgp fingerprint and add it to the room configuration you could
> identify the user easily. I am not sure about how to implement this though,
> not even sure if it would work. Doesnt seem that insane though imho
And how many people use PGP? That's not a scalable system for real people.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 6820 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Operators