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
Gosh, do people really get confrontational about IM?
Jabber Software Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7358 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards