[Standards] XEP-136 and XEP-59 implementation comments
stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Mar 26 21:42:29 UTC 2008
Alexander Tsvyashchenko wrote:
>>> Well, in fact I think I've found already one case when this is a
>>> problem, not only for collections listing, but also for their removal
>>> and for preferences storing, see my message:
>>> Basically, current approach means we have no real control over the
>>> messages with bare/domain JIDs: so I can nor delete messages from/to
>>> icq.example.com transport, neither forbid auto-archiving them without
>>> affecting all messages to all ICQ users.
>> Yes, but do you exchange messages with icq.example.com? We have the same
>> problem in MUC rooms -- you can't block all users at example.com from
>> joining the room without at the same time blocking example.com itself
>> from joining the room. Is that a big problem? I don't think so. We use
>> the same matching method in MUC, privacy lists, and now also message
>> archiving. If we want to fix that, I suggest that we fix it everywhere.
> Well, I think you have better overview as to judge if that's a big
> problem or not, as I can use here only my, quite limited, experience.
> To provide at least some example, if I haven't screwed up smth in SQL
> queries, my current stats for collections database (basically almost
> single-user installation) show the following, starting from 2007.06.01
> (somewhere around that date both ICQ and MSN gateways were installed and
> operational on my server):
> Total collections with *@msn.example.com: 229
> Total collections with msn.example.com: 124 (about 54% of all collections)
> Total collections with *@icq.example.com: 837
> Total collections with icq.example.com: 88 (about 10% of all collections)
> Of course I do not claim to be representative user here: I use ICQ and,
> especially, MSN gateways not that much recently, but error messages from
> gateways (wich comprise all of the "direct" messages from these domain
> JIDs) are coming regardless whether I use these gateways or not.
Why are you logging error messages? :)
> You may very well say (and be 100% right) this is not a problem that
> should be solved on XMPP specs level ;-) I agree it isn't that hard to
> just modify gateways so that they do not send users any direct error
> However, I believe that specs should be flexible enough to cover
> real-world usage cases - and it seems that with at least one such
> real-world usage case I have no real way to manage my archived
> collections/messages using the specs (so, remove or block from auto
> archiving error messages from gateways) - as to me this may imply lack
> of specs flexibility in this particular area, so even if particular
> problem with gateways can be sorted out by other means - I still thought
> it may be a good idea at least to discuss it.
Yes but I think this issue applies more broadly (e.g., to MUC and
privacy lists also). So we need to think up a more general solution.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7338 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Standards