Peter Saint-Andre - &yet
peter at andyet.net
Thu Jun 25 14:28:32 UTC 2015
On 6/25/15 2:27 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> Thinking a bit about the MUC2 stuff. MUC1 had Anon/semianon/nonanon.
> We’ve pretty much killed off fully anonymous rooms in MUC1.
I think those were never supported.
> Can people share their thoughts on usecases for semi-anon, please?
Semi-anonymous rooms are like IRC channels. Draw your own conclusions
for whether that's good or bad.
> 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).
We didn't have throw-away JIDs (well, SASL anonymous JIDs anyway) in the
> 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.
I do think that a system needing anonymity (say, a helpline) can handle
that using anonymous JIDs, not anonymous roomnicks.
More information about the Standards