[Standards] RFC vs privacy lists
dave at cridland.net
Thu Apr 28 08:31:19 UTC 2011
On Thu Apr 28 08:52:21 2011, Yann Leboulanger wrote:
> And worth: I don't know that it's blocked. If I use tkabber, set
> their anti-spam rule, then I use Gajim, it cannot even know that my
> server supports privacy rules because it doesn't reply to
Well, obviously the solution is to always use Gajim, then.
More seriously, you're right, but this is yet another reason why
XEP-0016 is subtlely flawed in various cases - it's all too easy to
shoot yourself in the foot like this.
For a start, at a quick reading it seems entirely possible to prevent
even changing your own privacy list.
>> The easiest way to fix this (IMHO) is probably to send the user a
>> error IQ whenever he is trying to send a type get/set one to a JID
>> is blocked from answering.
>> That does not fix your problem however and I maintain that the
>> to that is to allow entities that you want to receive IQs from to
>> you IQs :).
> That will partialy solve my problem: At least I'll get an iq error
> and it'll be ok with RFC.
> And then yes, I'll contact tkabber devs to whitelist the server in
> their anti-spam rule.
Or there's XEP-0191.
What prevents people using that? I know you can't do invisibility
through it, but there's always XEP-0186 for that. Otherwise it seems
vastly simpler and a much clearer specification, too.
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