daniel at noll.id.au
Tue Nov 7 09:24:55 UTC 2006
On Tuesday 07 November 2006 03:11, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Kevin Smith wrote:
> > With the recent discussion about reliable delivery, I'm somewhat torn
> > about blocking. I would feel a lot happier if a blocked user was told
> > that their stanza was rejected. <service-unavailable> does this for
> > <iq>, for <presence> this is probably unnecessary (apart from maybe
> > directed presence), but for messages I'm somewhat reticent to encourage
> > stanzas disappearing into a black hole. Is there a convincing reason for
> > the messages to be swallowed silently instead of being rejected cleanly?
> 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). Probably it makes sense for this to be a service-level
> policy or a user-configurable setting.
Is that really the right way around?
Scenario 1: You're talking to someone and they just turn away, or pretend to
face you but just ignore everything you say.
Scenario 2: You're talking to someone and they say "sorry, I'm not in the
mood to talk."
IMO, the latter is polite whereas the former is outright rude.
Either way I agree that it should be a setting. I would almost say that it's
a setting per-contact.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Standards