[Standards] RFC vs privacy lists

Matthew Wild mwild1 at gmail.com
Thu Apr 28 13:19:35 UTC 2011

On 28 April 2011 14:13, Yann Leboulanger <asterix at lagaule.org> wrote:
> Le 28/04/2011 10:31, Dave Cridland a écrit :
>>>> 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.
> Unfortunatly the goal of this XEP is not met: latest ejabberd and prosody
> don't implement that XEP. I've not checked other servers.


It's waiting for client support, testing, and feedback before we can
include it in a release.


More information about the Standards mailing list