[Standards] MUC2

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Thu Jun 25 14:46:04 UTC 2015


On 25 June 2015 at 15:28, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter at andyet.net> wrote:

> 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.


I vaguely recall that many years ago we discussed that individuals have
anonymity requirements, and not rooms. If you predicate the existence of
services which act as pseudonymizers (if you're one of the ancients,
anon.penet.fi), then chaining a few of these together gives much stronger
assurances than an anonymous MUC room ever could.


>
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://andyet.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20150625/58619558/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list