[Standards] Do Not Disturb, Directed Presence, etc

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Tue Jul 1 07:59:25 UTC 2008

Pedro Melo wrote something on Jaiku that made me think. (Always  

His scenario was basically:

- Two (presumably) mutually subscribed resources, A and B.

- A is in Do Not Disturb. B isn't.

- A sends B a message.

- B responds with another message.

- A responds to B's reply with an auto-responder whining about being  

A couple of things strike me here:

1) A really shouldn't be auto-responding to a response.

2) This could be simplified if, when sending the initial message, A  
sent directed presence to B.

3) Auto-responders, and possibly automatic messages in general,  
really ought to be marked as such, to avoid an even worse case, where  
B promptly auto-responds back, and a messaging loop occurs.

As it happens, in this particular case, B was in fact a bot, and  
cheerfully posted the autoresponse to (at least) Jaiku. It wasn't  
Pedro's bot, incidentally, not that it really matters.

I was curious as to what developers thought about the situation, and  
whether any clients do in fact send directed presence to roster  
people when in states such as dnd.

Finally, if dnd really does mean Do NOT Disturb At All Ever, then I'm  
in raised-eyebrow territory, because I thought it meant Do Not  
Disturb Unless Important - since if you really don't want to be  
disturbed, then there's that "unavailable" presence type. But what's  
important is tricky - so perhaps it's an application of XEP-0155, and  
we negotiate that between clients.

Any thoughts?

Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade

More information about the Standards mailing list