[Standards-JIG] proto-JEP: Address lists
Carlo v. Loesch
CvL at mail.symlynX.com
Wed Jun 7 19:37:32 UTC 2006
Michal vorner Vaner typeth:
| > Precisely in a bottom-up approach, recipients can unsubscribe from a
| > SPIM transmission, eventually leading to whole servers unsubscribing it,
| > so the SPIM no longer gets anywhere. Or if the spimming server insists
| > on sending something on a context that no longer has people on it, the
| > receiving server easily figures out this guy is misbehaving and blacklists
| > him.
| Well, he can as well send direct messages as well and we will end up the
| same, right? Do yo uwant to turn the whole xmpp inside-out?
Oh you know I'm always ready to do that.. but jokes aside, in a unicast
situation the spimmer will have to spend the same amount of energy to
get the messages out as the receivers, so that's at least not doing him
a favour like taking over the distribution job.
Also in a future network, where every message to multiple recipients
is sent in smarter ways, many a copy of the same unicast message may just
arouse antispim attentions.. in other words, you have a chance to fight it.
| > Whereas in a top-down approach the SPIM is distributed to all servers,
| > which then will find most recipients have set up privacy bans against
| > the sender, so the message was transferred for nothing. The recipient
| > server may be able to figure out, that the sender probably is a spimmer,
| > but there is nothing it can do to protect itself from the traffic,
| > as the sender isn't doing anything illegal.
| Well, <message> stanzas are based on push principle. So I guess it is
| more logical to make the broadcast the same way.
No I wouldn't agree. IP Multicast is also a push medium, but subscription
operates bottom-up. Even IRC pushes something down a branch of the
multicast tree only when subscribers have JOINed the channel. Since no
one can tell you not to PART the channel, once all subscribers have parted,
the channel's noise no longer makes it to the server where the subscribers
were located on. On a side note, Bitnet Relay wasn't as smart: It would
distribute channel talk to all nodes no matter if there were people on it,
giving administrators of relay servers a nice possibility to look into any
channel conversation no matter how private (channel numbers >999) or secret
(negative channel numbers).
More information about the Standards