[Standards] UPDATED: XEP-0186 (Invisible Command)
stpeter at stpeter.im
Mon Sep 10 19:48:23 UTC 2007
Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
>>> Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>>> Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
>>>>> Isn't this spec, for example, just special casing presence-out:deny ?
>>>>> <iq type='set' id='invisible'>
>>>>> <query xmlns='jabber:iq:privacy'>
>>>>> <list name='invisible-all'>
>>>>> <item action='deny' order='1'>
>>>> Yes it is. But then you need access to a server and client that support
>>>> privacy lists. And you need to fiddle with your privacy lists all the
>>>> time to add and subtract invisibility, which it seems to me introduces
>>>> the possibility of messing up the definitions (not to mention the
>>>> bandwidth usage). A small, focused command seems more useful to me.
>>> In our client for example, there is a 'invisible to all' list which just
>>> does the above - invisibility actually gets shown in the ui as though it
>>> was a presence status.
>> When the user chooses "invisible to all", does that overrride all the
>> other rules already defined (e.g., don't allow any communications with
>> UserX)? I think that in order to do this right, you'd need to modify the
>> active rule to now include invisibility, not define a standalone rule
>> for it.
> Just changes the active list entirely, not edit the current list - that
> would be too cumbersome.
Which is precisely my objection.
My active list has a rule that blocks a spammer from communicating with
me. I go invisible by changing the active list. Now the spammer's junk
Doesn't that seem sub-optimal?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards