[Standards-JIG] Contact address for abuse
stpeter at jabber.org
Thu Aug 25 23:07:55 UTC 2005
Jacek Konieczny wrote:
> IMHO at least equivalent of postmaster/abuse address should be defined
> in XMPP specs.
> It isn't but that doesn't mean we cannot agree on such
> address and use it before the next XMPP RFC version. The sooner (before
> large providers set up their own, different procedures) the better. I
> guess it may be useful to make contact information discoverable, so here
> is my proposition:
> Write a JEP describing protocol for abuse and administrator contact
> discovery. It should be a _simple_, disco-based or dataforms-based
> protocol. The protocol would provide not only contact JID, but other
> contact URIs (eg. mailto: and http:) as well.
While I think a special disco node for contact info is a good idea, I
don't think the core XMPP RFC should have a dependency on disco.
However, servers that implement disco could implement the special
contact info node.
> And the JEP should also
> define one, default address, that will be later included in the XMPP
> Or maybe the one, well known address is enough?
I think that's a good start.
> The default address could be just the JID of the server, or JID with
> some well-known node part ("abuse").
Many existing server implementations use the JID of the server as an
alias for the server admins -- e.g., messages (but not IQs or presence)
addressed to jabber.org are distributed to the admins of the jabber.org
server. Perhaps we can standardize on that since it is already common
practice. The only potential problem is that servers might want to
exchange message stanzas, too, and it might not be appropriate to
deliver those to the admins. However, since servers are "always on" they
should always be able to handle IQs, so I don't see a strong need for
servers to do messaging. Therefore I think sending a message stanza to
the server's JID (just the domain address) should work fine.
Jabber Software Foundation
More information about the Standards