[Standards] RFC vs privacy lists

Dave Cridland 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  
> disco#info.
> 
> 
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  
>> type
>> error IQ whenever he is trying to send a type get/set one to a JID  
>> that
>> is blocked from answering.
>> That does not fix your problem however and I maintain that the  
>> solution
>> to that is to allow entities that you want to receive IQs from to  
>> send
>> 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.
-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave at cridland.net - xmpp:dwd at dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade



More information about the Standards mailing list