[Standards] MUC2

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Thu Jun 25 15:02:11 UTC 2015


On 25 Jun 2015, at 15:48, Sam Whited <sam at samwhited.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com> wrote:
>> On 25 Jun 2015, at 15:28, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter at andyet.net> wrote:
>>> Semi-anonymous rooms are like IRC channels. Draw your own conclusions for whether that's good or bad.
>> 
>> I don’t think that’s true, is it? Having or not having @ in a particular channel doesn’t affect your ability to whois a user on IRC to the best of my knowledge.
> 
> It's true in the sense that a nick in IRC (or a semi-anonymous MUC) is
> effectively an ephemeral identity. Eg. if you're talking to someone on
> IRC and they part and then join again, you can't be sure it's actually
> the same user (unless they've registered the nick; let's ignore the
> fact that you can probably whois and snag their IP address... maybe
> it's dynamic and it changes between your conversations). However, once
> you throw JIDs into the mix it doesn't matter if the nick is
> ephemeral, you can always see that the JID is the same, meaning that
> whomever you're speaking with at least has access to the same account.

I think that says “Ignore the bit that makes it untrue” is probably detrimental to this argument :)

In my mind, the closest analogy to MUC nicks is IRC nicks, and the closest analogy to JIDs is the whois result. It’s not a clean mapping to start with, because just having someone’s nick (especially on registered-nick services) is enough to be able to identify someone across the whole service, they’re not per-MUC.

/K


More information about the Standards mailing list