[standards-jig] Banning with wildcards in MUC

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Thu Jan 15 18:07:15 UTC 2004


Well, "example.com" is a valid JID, too. Nothing says that an entity
that wants to join a MUC room needs to have a JID of the form user at host
(perhaps there is some reflector service that is located at a JID like
reflector.example.com). So I wouldn't want to make assumptions about
what occupant JIDs look like.

Hmm.

Peter

On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 10:53:10AM -0700, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
> *@example.com is a valid JID.  Someone actually registered *@jabber.org
> somewhere along the way... :)
> 
> What would banning "example.com" mean?
> 
> -- 
> Joe Hildebrand
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alexey Shchepin [mailto:alexey at sevcom.net] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 2:58 PM
> > To: standards-jig at jabber.org
> > Subject: [standards-jig] Banning with wildcards in MUC
> > 
> > Hi!
> > 
> > I suggest to add possibility for banning of users in MUC with 
> > wildcards (e.g. *@example.com to ban users from entire 
> > example.com domain).
> > 
> > Any ideas how to better add this to protocol?



More information about the Standards mailing list