[Standards] Burner JIDs and MIX [WAS A possible MIX approach: hiding multiple clients]

Sam Whited sam at samwhited.com
Fri Jan 6 16:35:14 UTC 2017


On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Steve Kille <steve.kille at isode.com> wrote:
> A key problem with this is the JIDs then become anonymous to the channel management.
>
> Having a situation where channel participants do not know who is in a channel is fine.    I think that in many situations, it will be beneficial for administration to know real JIDs.   Would you really want to have the XSF Room/Channel full of burner JIDs?         Consider if I try to join the channel with a burner JID and nick of "Sam Whited".

If the MIX service is issuing burner JIDs then it could refuse to
issue new burner JIDs to a user if one of that users burner JIDs has
been banned (or simply refuse to allow future burner JIDs issued to
that user into that specific room if they weren't banned from the
whole service), so in a way this could provide "fully anonymous" rooms
where even channel administration does not know the persons real JID
(only the MIX service and its administrators do), but can still ban
that JID.

If the original JID should actually be known by channel administrators
(the semi-anonymous model), the MIX service could publish the users
real JID to a JID mapping node that can only be accessed by channel
admins.

—Sam



-- 
Sam Whited
pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3


More information about the Standards mailing list