[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).


More information about the Standards mailing list