[standards-jig] Invisibility Support in Jabber

Ben Schumacher ben at blahr.com
Fri Aug 9 16:09:37 UTC 2002


I'm not sure the ICQ-way is the correct way to do this. This has changed
significantly as ICQ has matured over the years, but the original protocol
for ICQ actually still sent presence to a user with a type of invisible.
Apparently, if you had a non-standard client, you could see who had you on
their invisible list.

In addition, ICQ adopted this model because early versions of their
protocol didn't have precious presence. If I came online, my presence was
basically available to anybody. That's bad. Jabber doesn't have that
problem.

This is still an issue of client design, but in one my later emails, I
mentioned the idea of a presence bookmark. It would be possible in any
client to have a 'default' presence bookmark, that would be sent out when
I logged in. This would give you the same behavior that ICQ has. If you're
just worried about the extra byte you'd be sending out, then the obvious
solution would be to have header support.

That's my stance, and I'm stickin' to it.

bs.

On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Tijl Houtbeckers wrote:
> I agree with you we need better invisibility support. However the
> biggest problem with what you propose is that every time you log in as
> invisible you have to send a list to the server of people you want to
> be visible to. I'd rather have a persistant list stored on the server
> wich deals with this. It would be a bit like the ICQ model (wich is
> very good IMHO). In ICQ this is called your "visible" list. The
> difference between ICQ's model and yours is that in ICQ "invisible" is
> a seperate state. When you are invisible the people on your visible
> list can see that are in the "invisible" state. On the one hand I this
> can be usefull, on the other it potentially breaks excisting clients.
> What I like in your model though is that I can still be xa, away, etc.
> even though I am invisible. But in any case I think the "visible" list
> should be persistant and stored on the server. What are the opinion on
> creating some kind of "invisible" list as well?
>
> The way the ICQv7 transport currently does all this is a bit of a hack
> (cause it has to work within the current spec. as much as possible),
> there's still no way of knowing who is on what list
> (normal/visible/invisible), but it's still the best invisibility I've
> seen on Jabber so far :) so here is the text from,
> http://icqv7-t.sourceforge.net :
>
> > Invisible list is the list of users which don't see your presence
> > when you aren't in invisible state.
> >
> > Manipulation on invisible list should be performed while you aren't
> > in invisible state.
> >
> > To put an user into the invisible list send
> >
> > <uin at icq.foo.bar' type='invisible'/>
> >
> > to remove from the invisible list send
> >
> > <uin at icq.foo.bar' type='available'/>
> >
> > Visible list is the list of users which can see your presence when
> > you are in invisible state.
> >
> > Manipulation on visible list should be performed while you are in
> > invisible state.
> >
> > To put an user into the visible list send
> >
> > <uin at icq.foo.bar' type='available'/>
> >
> > to remove from the invisible list send
> >
> > <uin at icq.foo.bar' type='invisible'/>
> >
> > Warning! The invisible list is server-stored, so users will be there
> > even you relogin




More information about the Standards mailing list