[Standards-JIG] XEP-191

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Wed Nov 15 20:37:35 UTC 2006

Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 20:24 +1100, Daniel Noll 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). Probably it makes sense for this to be a service-level
>>> policy or a user-configurable setting.
>> Is that really the right way around?
> I was involved in the IMPP working group, 

You have my condolences. :-)

> and while I didn't coin the
> term "polite blocking," I think it's intended to be somewhat
> tongue-in-cheek.  Recall that these specifications are all written by
> engineers, to whom the term "polite" may not always have positive
> connotations. :)

Yes, that sounds right.

> Regardless of whether it's "polite," it's always going to be possible to
> silently black-hole someone's messages (in the receiving client if
> nowhere else), 

Agreed. I guess what we're trying to avoid is large black holes built
right into the protocol.

> and there are definitely going to be users who want to
> respond to a presence subscription as if they are honoring it, but
> always appear to be offline to that subscriber in order to avoid a
> confrontation.

Gosh, do people really get confrontational about IM?


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/20061115/18312044/attachment.bin>

More information about the Standards mailing list