[Standards] RFC vs privacy lists

Kevin Smith kevin at kismith.co.uk
Thu Apr 28 14:17:26 UTC 2011


On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im> wrote:
> On 4/28/11 9:52 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> On Thu Apr 28 14:49:35 2011, Evgeniy Khramtsov wrote:
>>> 28.04.2011 23:19, Matthew Wild wrote:
>>>> On 28 April 2011 14:13, Yann Leboulanger<asterix at lagaule.org>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunatly the goal of this XEP is not met: latest ejabberd and
>>>>> prosody
>>>>> don't implement that XEP. I've not checked other servers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> http://code.google.com/p/prosody-modules/wiki/mod_blocking
>>>>
>>>> It's waiting for client support, testing, and feedback before we can
>>>> include it in a release.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is a patch available for ejabberd as well:
>>> https://support.process-one.net/browse/EJAB-695
>>
>> And just to join the vapourware announcements, the next release of
>> M-Link will be shipping with XEP-0191 as well. We've also implemented a
>> XEP-0050 suite of commands to control it, in order to side-step the
>> client/server/chicken/egg problem to some degree.
>
> In fact it might have been better to just do ad-hoc commands, but the
> feedback at the time was that people wanted a simple, one-off control
> for "block this user". At least that's how I interpreted the feedback...

I think that's Right.
The ad-hocs are a temporary work-around because clients don't support
191 because servers don't support 191 because clients don't support
191 because servers...

It's possible to give a generally nicer user experience around known
commands than it in ad-hocs. (I neatly sidestep the issue of known
ad-hoc nodes and semantics).

/K



More information about the Standards mailing list