[Standards] MUC2

Sam Whited sam at samwhited.com
Thu Jun 25 14:01:14 UTC 2015

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com> wrote:

> Can people share their thoughts on usecases for semi-anon, please? It’s not entirely clear to me what these are (users who want anonymity seem to already be using throw-away JIDs to achieve that, instead of relying on MUC configuration).

It's not clear to me that there are *any* use cases. Maintaining two
methods of having 1:1 conversations (normal 1:1's, and the anon-MUC
version of 1:1's) just makes everything more complicated for no real

> There seems to be some significant merit in having MUCs always be non-anonymous in MUC2, to solve some of the addressing messes we’ve found ourselves in.

Agreed; MUC2 should absolutely remove the semi-anon capabilities. This
will ensure that the MUC2 specification is kept clean and simple. If a
user wants to keep their JID private (for some reason), joining an
"anonymous" MUC is not the way to do it anyways (since admins can
still see it, and/or the server admin could always make the MUC public
and you probably wouldn't even notice), so (as you said) people are
going to end up using burner JID's anyways.

Having them always be non-private also serves the added benefit of
providing some sort of assurance that you're actually talking to the
same person two days in a row (eg. Alice talks to Bob on day 1, the
next day she talks to Bob but it's someone else who claimed the same
nick... now she can verify that the JID is the same, so it's at least
someone with access to Bob's account). Of course, this can already be
better achieved with PGP, but let's be honest, that never works (going
slightly OT with that line of reasoning though).

I'm very much hoping that MUC2 will be one of the hot topics at the
North American Summit this October.


Sam Whited
pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3

More information about the Standards mailing list