[Standards] Invisible Command and probes

Matthew Wild mwild1 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 30 07:26:28 UTC 2010

On 30 June 2010 08:06, Paul Aurich <paul at darkrain42.org> wrote:
> 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.

>> 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 ;) )

The debate has been rolling on for years, I don't think there are or
will be any winners or losers for some centuries if we allow it to
continue :)


More information about the Standards mailing list