[Standards] MUC2

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.

s/had/has/

> 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 
old days.

> 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.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/



More information about the Standards mailing list