[Standards] XEP-0369 Proxy JIDs and MIX

Kevin Smith kevin.smith at isode.com
Tue Jan 10 15:30:47 UTC 2017



On 10/01/2017 15:23, Sam Whited wrote:
>> 2.   While burner JIDs may be helpful to provide a user with complete
>> anonymity in a channel,  I think that channel administration
>> needs access to the real JIDs.   It would not be acceptable to manage a
>> public MUC and just have a stack of anonymous participants.  So use of
>> client provided burner JIDs is not a viable approach to JID hidden channels.
> If burner JIDs are allowed on some other server, this happens anyways.
> It's not something you can prevent.

Well, kinda, except that burner JIDs have much the same security 
properties as SASL ANONYMOUS, so the same considerations apply - these 
things shouldn't be allowed to S2S, and servers that do allow them to 
S2S can be blocked at the whole server level (as happens already).

/K


More information about the Standards mailing list