[Standards] Blocking command and Privacy Lists

Sam Whited sam at samwhited.com
Mon Dec 22 13:51:20 UTC 2014



On 12/22/2014 04:19 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> Slightly confused by this. XEP-0191 is server-side enforced, so the
> behaviour will be applied and controlled by the server, not the client.

Gajim uses Privacy lists without the XEP-0191 frontend. Sorry, I was
unclear there.

> This would mean that probes still get sent, which seems inappropriate.

My language probably needs to be tweaked (and updated in several other
places in the XEP); outgoing probes (from the user to the blocked
client) should remain the same (dropped so the user appears offline).
Incoming probes should be handled like they currently are:

From XEP-0191:
> For presence stanzas (including notifications, subscriptions, and 
> probes), the server MUST NOT respond and MUST NOT return an error.

The server must not respond, but it could still pass notifications on to
the user.

> Otherwise we're in the slightly weird situation that we're predicating on
> remote servers sending presence without a probe - this is quite possible,
> but could lead to some very odd behaviour when this get out of sync. Also,
> there's the RFC 3921 optimization; that reduces the presence to just
> online/offline in some cases.

Good point; I hate to potentially leak information by sending probes to
the server. I'll have to think about this one.

—Sam

-- 
Sam Whited
pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3
https://blog.samwhited.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20141222/db2d4c23/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list