Patches item #1670650, was opened at 2007-02-28 12:23 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by crosser You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300235&aid=1670650&group_id=235
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread, including the initial issue submission, for this request, not just the latest update. Category: None Group: None Status: Closed Resolution: Rejected Priority: 5 Private: No Submitted By: Eugene Crosser (crosser) Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Summary: Make privacy settings for ICQ work Initial Comment: As of 2.0.0. beta6, privacy settings no longer change back themselves (see bug #1455192) but they still do not work, that is, you still receive messages from contacts that should be blocked. At least for ICQ. See bugs #1370335 and #1593579. Maybe there is a similar problem with other protocols (bug #1071219) but I did not check that. I found that, in my case for ICQ, protocol specific allow/deny check does not work, but as it *is* defined, "catchall" entry at libgaim/server.c line 434 does not have effect. I don't know if what I propose is a proper fix (because AIM specific functions do not work for ICQ), or merely a workaround, but just setting *_permit/*_deny entries in prpl_info to NULL seems to fix the problem with ICQ privacy settings. Please could the developers look into my diff and either apply it or come up with a "correct" solution. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Eugene Crosser (crosser) Date: 2007-03-02 21:48 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=124141 Originator: YES I understand the reason, and indeed my patch breaks invisibility control. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, ICQ "invisible" status does not prevent reception of messages from the party for whom you are "invisible", so client-side blocking of incoming messages is necessary anyway. And I think that ability to block incoming communication is rather important. In the light of this, may I propose two alternative solutions? The first one is a real no-brainer: take away outer "if" in libgaim/server.c line 434 (and possibly line 656 too), and just always run gaim_privacy_check. This way, local filtering will be applied regardless of whether the server does filtering on our behalf or not. I cannot see any adverse effect of such change. If the first solution is too simple, a separate (Boolean) field can be introduced into GaimPluginProtocolInfo structure like "do_local_filtering" and filled with non-zero for protocols that do need local filtering. Then, this field can be checked instead of set_permit_deny in server.c. I can produce appropriate diff if I am given green light on that. Thanks for consideration. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Mark Doliner (thekingant) Date: 2007-02-28 19:54 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=20979 Originator: NO I don't think this is a good idea. Gaim's permit ad deny lists map to icq's visible and invisible lists, and this change breaks that. A correct solution requires rewriting our privacy API, and no one has done that yet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=300235&aid=1670650&group_id=235 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Gaim-patches mailing list Gaim-patches@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gaim-patches
