[Standards] RFC vs privacy lists

Evgeniy Khramtsov xramtsov at gmail.com
Thu Apr 28 13:41:22 UTC 2011

28.04.2011 23:30, Yann Leboulanger wrote:
> Le 28/04/2011 15:20, Matthew Wild a écrit :
>> On 28 April 2011 14:16, Yann Leboulanger<asterix at lagaule.org>  wrote:
>>> Le 28/04/2011 14:12, Remko Tronçon a écrit :
>>>>> I thought we had established "incoming" means incoming from the 
>>>>> client's
>>>>> POV.
>>>> Right, i actually meant the whole chain, up to and including the
>>>> server part (up to the stanza router).
>>>> It doesn't make sense to filter out stanzas from your own server (not
>>>> talking about the ones from other users on your server). But the XEP
>>>> could use some more specification of what "incoming" really is to
>>>> avoid this problem of shooting yourself in the foot.
>>> if that could be written in XEP-0016 that incoming iq is from a 
>>> client to
>>> another client, or at least not from user's server to user, that 
>>> would be
>>> perfect I think.
>>> And probably that "clients should not send iq get|set to jid that are
>>> blocked"
>> Why not just clarify that privacy lists only block incoming iqs of
>> type "set"/"get"? Doesn't that solve everything in the least
>> surprising way?
> that would, yes, but isn't it a problem to be spammed with iq 
> result|error?

Such spam is a concern, indeed. I think the server SHOULD NOT block 
incoming stanzas sent from the server and from the recipient to himself. 
So it will be up to the implementation (there could be a configuration 
option). Will this solve the problem?

Evgeniy Khramtsov, ProcessOne.
xmpp:xram at jabber.ru.

More information about the Standards mailing list