[Standards-JIG] XEP-191

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Mon Nov 6 16:33:43 UTC 2006

Kevin Smith wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> This is the ancient debate between "polite blocking" (you don't know
>> that I'm blocking you) and "impolite blocking" (you're a loser so I'm
>> blocking you).
> I had wondered if it was this, but I think it's more than questionable
> that ignoring someone is more polite than telling them you don't want to
> speak to them. There are good reasons though for not having a black
> hole, so I suggest that unless there's a more solid reason for not doing
> so we come up with /some/ method of bouncing blocked messages. It
> doesn't need to be 'you are blocked', but it's not good for messages to
> disappear.

BTW, polite blocking is what we defined in RFC 3921, so XEP-0191 as it
stands is consistent with RFC 3921 and XEP-0016. IMHO we need to think
about it a bit more before making a change. And really this is a social
issue (leave it up to service-level policy or individual choice) than a
technology issue per se.


Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20061106/ccdfcec8/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list