[Standards] MUC Spam and MUC invites
hawke at hawkesnest.net
Thu Sep 6 17:29:45 UTC 2007
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> One benefit of Dave's way is that it meshes with the original reason for
> invites to go through the room (e.g., permissions check to determine
> that the invitor is allowed to send invitations, room adds invitee to
> the member list if the room is members-only). So I'd prefer Dave's
> approach. But I haven't had a chance to look at RFC 4467 yet...
I don't see the sense in requiring the permissions check. I could just
as easily send a standard message saying "hey, you should join
foo at conference.foo.org; the password is 'secret'" -- the muc invites
protocol is just a convenience.
On the members list thing, does that mean that inviting someone to a
members-only room makes them a member? That seems weird+bad. I would
expect it to only allow them access as long as the token is valid, not
grant them permanent access.
But yeah, I don't see any problems with Dave's method at all; on the
contrary, I pointed out where my method does *not* have an advantage.
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Standards