Joe Hildebrand wrote: > On Aug 3, 2007, at 3:10 AM, Robin Redeker wrote: >> Hm, and what is about http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0048.html ? >> That would still be useful to store non-autmatically-joined MUCs I guess? >> Also that XEP offers also a way to auto-join MUCs. > > The more we talked about this around the office, the more we thought we > only needed two things to make this work for our use cases. > > 1) A new MUC role which effectively the opposite of visitor. Of course, > on the bar napkin, this got written as "rotisiv". :) A rotisiv can > potentially speak (broadcasting to all of the members of the room), but > can't see any of the messages that are broadcast to the room. As well, > rotisivs get presence from all of the participants and moderators of the > room, but nobody receives the rotisiv's presence from the room. > Obviously, an implementation might want ACLs to specify who can be a > rotisiv for a given room.
I'm not sure why you wouldn't want visitors to receive messages, perhaps I'm missing something. I can understand why the room admins would not want to broadcast presence from visitors in a moderated room, but that's why we have the muc#roomconfig_presencebroadcast option. /psa
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
