5 Jul
2024
5 Jul
'24
8:31 a.m.
Hello!
XEP-0045 Multi-User Chat, section 9.2 defines that the ban list is always
based on a user's bare JID (in the first paragraph).
That same section also defines a matching order (in the last paragraph) in
which items with a full JID are explicitly included.
This seems to contradict each other. Am I misunderstanding this part of the
specification?
Assuming that full JID values aren't to be used on a ban-list, should the
matching order as defined in the XEP be modified to not refer to full JIDs?
Kind regards,
Guus
8 Jul
8 Jul
10:58 a.m.
On 7/5/24 8:31 AM, Guus der Kinderen wrote:
Hello!
XEP-0045 Multi-User Chat, section 9.2 defines that the ban list is
always based on a user's bare JID (in the first paragraph).
That same section also defines a matching order (in the last paragraph)
in which items with a full JID are explicitly included.
This seems to contradict each other. Am I misunderstanding this part of
the specification?
Assuming that full JID values aren't to be used on a ban-list, should
the matching order as defined in the XEP be modified to not refer to
full JIDs?
Hallo Guus,
I suspect the spec originally said that matching is done on the basis of
a bare JID <user@domain> and then we tried to align the matching with
Privacy Lists / XEP-0016.
In practice I don't know if MUC implementations allow banning based on a
domain, but in theory that could be a helpful feature (e.g., to block
arbitrary accounts from rogue servers). However, to avoid confusion I
would suggest that banning not take account of the resourcepart.
Peter
11:07 a.m.
On 7/8/24 19:58, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 7/5/24 8:31 AM, Guus der Kinderen wrote:
Hey,
I know that at least Gajim Allows you to block by Domain.
That is i can go to group chat settings -> outcasts and I can write a
domain like 'conversations.im'
then it will ban all users from that domain that already joined and
reject any new ones from joining.
I know because I have used it this way before :)
MSavoritias
Hello!
XEP-0045 Multi-User Chat, section 9.2 defines that the ban list is
always based on a user's bare JID (in the first paragraph).
That same section also defines a matching order (in the last
paragraph) in which items with a full JID are explicitly included.
This seems to contradict each other. Am I misunderstanding this part
of the specification?
Assuming that full JID values aren't to be used on a ban-list, should
the matching order as defined in the XEP be modified to not refer to
full JIDs?
Hallo Guus,
I suspect the spec originally said that matching is done on the basis
of a bare JID <user@domain> and then we tried to align the matching
with Privacy Lists / XEP-0016.
In practice I don't know if MUC implementations allow banning based on
a domain, but in theory that could be a helpful feature (e.g., to
block arbitrary accounts from rogue servers). However, to avoid
confusion I would suggest that banning not take account of the
resourcepart.
Peter
9 Jul
9 Jul
10:32 a.m.
Hello,
Thank you for the feedback. I believe that general consensus is that the
resourcepart should no longer be referenced in this part of the XEP, but
that banning based on bare-domain JIDs should remain possible.
I've prepared a change here: https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1360
Kind regards,
Guus
On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 7:07 PM MSavoritias <email(a)msavoritias.me> wrote:
On 7/8/24 19:58, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
On 7/5/24 8:31 AM, Guus der Kinderen wrote:
Hey,
I know that at least Gajim Allows you to block by Domain.
That is i can go to group chat settings -> outcasts and I can write a
domain like 'conversations.im'
then it will ban all users from that domain that already joined and
reject any new ones from joining.
I know because I have used it this way before :)
MSavoritias
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- standards(a)xmpp.org
To unsubscribe send an email to standards-leave(a)xmpp.org
Hello!
XEP-0045 Multi-User Chat, section 9.2 defines that the ban list is
always based on a user's bare JID (in the first paragraph).
That same section also defines a matching order (in the last
paragraph) in which items with a full JID are explicitly included.
This seems to contradict each other. Am I misunderstanding this part
of the specification?
Assuming that full JID values aren't to be used on a ban-list, should
the matching order as defined in the XEP be modified to not refer to
full JIDs?
Hallo Guus,
I suspect the spec originally said that matching is done on the basis
of a bare JID <user@domain> and then we tried to align the matching
with Privacy Lists / XEP-0016.
In practice I don't know if MUC implementations allow banning based on
a domain, but in theory that could be a helpful feature (e.g., to
block arbitrary accounts from rogue servers). However, to avoid
confusion I would suggest that banning not take account of the
resourcepart.
Peter
61
days inactive
65
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Guus der Kinderen -
MSavoritias -
Peter Saint-Andre