[Standards] Do Not Disturb, Directed Presence, etc
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.
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
More information about the Standards