[Standards] MUC2

Florian Schmaus flo at geekplace.eu
Thu Jun 25 15:32:50 UTC 2015


On 25.06.2015 17:09, Thijs Alkemade wrote:
>> On 25 jun. 2015, at 10:27, Kevin Smith <kevin.smith at isode.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thinking a bit about the MUC2 stuff. MUC1 had Anon/semianon/nonanon. We’ve pretty much killed off fully anonymous rooms in MUC1.
>>
>> 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).
> 
> 1. Privacy.
> 2. To not turn public MUCs into treasure troves for spam bots. All of these JIDs have an active client signed in, so they are great targets.

To hide your contact data should never and can't be the answer against
SPAM. I stopped obfuscating my Mail address a few years ago. It's
available in a few dozen places over the net. Yet I don't have an issue
with SPAM. That same should be true for my JID.

> 3. Best practices currently dictate that resources should be random, as they are privacy-sensitive. That’s almost opposite of revealing it to everyone in a room.

Ack. MUC2 (or similar protocols) should be designed to only show the
bare JID of the participants.

- Florian


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 603 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20150625/cb67d182/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list