[Standards-JIG] XEP-191

Daniel Noll 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
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20061107/fe070529/attachment.sig>

More information about the Standards mailing list