[Standards-JIG] XEP-191

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Nov 7 16:11:25 UTC 2006


Matthias Wimmer wrote:
> Tomasz Sterna schrieb:
>> Dnia 06-11-2006, pon o godzinie 09:11 -0700, Peter Saint-Andre napisał(a):
>>> 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 would advocate the opposite.
>> Leaving a person waiting for an reply forever, wasting his time, is even
>> more impolite than telling directly, that it's no use of trying to contact.
> 
> I think, that it is useless to discuss what is more polite to do. That's
> not a question of the protocol, but a question of culture. Therefore
> different people, living in different cultures might need different ways
> their server is acting.
> 
> It is okay for me to have a "SHOULD" and an error type a server can
> respond to blocked messages. As long is it is no "MUST" the server still
> can be configured to act differently if you are deploying it in an
> environment, where it's better not to reject blocked messages.

Exactly.

> But I agree with Daniel, that the best thing would be to be able to
> configure the way a server handles blocking on a per-contact basis.

More complexity for the individual. IMHO very few regular people are
going to configure that kind of thing. Not that I object to defining
methods to configure per-contact block handling (maybe via ad-hoc
commands?), but we need to recognize that it won't be widely used.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml

-------------- 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/20061107/b6f751b9/attachment.bin>


More information about the Standards mailing list