[standards-jig] Discussion on JEP-0016: Server-Based PrivacyRules
me at pgmillard.com
Tue Jan 22 15:52:28 UTC 2002
M. Lin wrote:
> I do not object to JEP-0016 forcefully enough to vote it down in its
> present form if it is really wanted so badly. I merely point out that
> the "feature" is unnecessary and potentially counterproductive. I don't
> mean to be trying to censor or otherwise hinder people who are working
> on the old, really hard, largely unsolved problems. This work should
> continue in the forums where it is appropriate. In the immediate term, I
> think the window of opportunity is quickly closing for our community to
> solve the new, pretty hard, but probably solvable problems (which I and
> others have been describing on JDEV and JNG-JIG in the past few weeks)
> before certain corporations that are more focused.
I agree that there are other better avenues that we could be persuing, and
we are persuing those areas of innovation on the JNG list, JDEV, etc...
HOWEVER, it is not of value to the community to set aside features that many
many people have asked for because they are "trivial" to implement, or seem
simplistic. It is wise to listen to the users and implementors of a system.
This was the whole point of putting forth a relatively simple JEP. Provide
the basic functionality that people want now. Don't make it limited to JUST
blacklisting (ie, make it extensible so we can add to the protocol in the
future); and document the protocol, so that anyone that wishes to implement
blacklisting in their IM server can do so with a standardized protocol.
By no means, are we trying to tackle the whole issue of eliminating spam, or
feature rich rules based msg processing. Those are significantly larger
issues that will need to be addressed at one point, but certainly don't need
to be done now. Lets take "bite sized pieces" out of the protocol. Making
sure to document the pieces as we go along, and improve upon the protocol as
ML - If you're concerned about performance hits on the open source server w/
blacklists enabled, just don't add the JSM module :) This would be like
turning off DNS lookups on apache for improved performance.
More information about the Standards