[Standards] Invisible Command and probes

Paul Aurich paul at darkrain42.org
Wed Jun 30 07:06:26 UTC 2010


On 2010-06-29 23:48, Matthew Wild wrote:
> On 30 June 2010 06:13, Paul Aurich <paul at darkrain42.org> wrote:
>> While discussing XEP-0186 (Invisible Command) in
>> prosody at conference.prosody.im, I noticed that the specification doesn't
>> actually mention whether or not a server is supposed to generate any
>> sort of presence probes.
>>
>> Waqas suggested that based on historical discussions, most people think
>> the server shouldn't (I disagree, but anyway.)  Regardless of which side
>> of that people are on, I think the specification should, at the very
>> least, bring up the topic.
>>
> 
> I wasn't around for the discussion (I was sleeping for once) but my
> plan for a while has been to add a new attribute to signal this.
> Setting probe='true' would ask the server to send probes (and thus
> risk revealing your connected state) or probe='false' to not do this,
> but understand you may not receive presence from your contacts.

+1 from me (if only because I suspect I'd be on the losing side of the
ensuing debate without this option ;) )

~Paul

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 897 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20100630/869ece65/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list