[Standards] MUC Spam and MUC invites
hawke at hawkesnest.net
Wed Sep 5 17:34:51 UTC 2007
Dave Cridland wrote:
> What you're saying here is that room invitations would benefit Google
> users by coming from the actual sender, rather than relayed via the
> room. This seems sensible, because blocking lists might otherwise
> intervene as well for other users.
>> A direct invitation would probably look like as follows (modified
>> example 46 and 47 from XEP-0045):
What does Google currently use for its (presumably direct) invites, and
would it perhaps be good to adopt that if it's close enough to what was
> This seems much more logical to me than the status-quo. You'd quite
> possibly need to tell the room you're inviting someone, though.
Perhaps include a token in the invite? Give the token to the room, and
then the invitee would include that token when joining? This would have
a couple of benefits: It would be possible to invite someone to a
password-protected room without revealing the password, and also to
invite someone to a members-only room without making them a member.
If the token idea is sound, I'm not sure that including the password in
the invite makes sense; a "bookmark" or "contact" sending protocol might
make more sense for that. (Where you could send a bookmark for the room
to a contact, and they could then be given the option of adding it to
their bookmarks or joining the room immediately, or both)
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Standards