Mridul Muralidharan wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >>> Isn't this spec, for example, just special casing presence-out:deny ? >>> >>> " >>> <iq type='set' id='invisible'> >>> <query xmlns='jabber:iq:privacy'> >>> <list name='invisible-all'> >>> <item action='deny' order='1'> >>> <presence-out/> >>> </item> >>> </list> >>> </query> >>> </iq> >>> " >> >> Yes it is. But then you need access to a server and client that support >> privacy lists. And you need to fiddle with your privacy lists all the >> time to add and subtract invisibility, which it seems to me introduces >> the possibility of messing up the definitions (not to mention the >> bandwidth usage). A small, focused command seems more useful to me. > > In our client for example, there is a 'invisible to all' list which just > does the above - invisibility actually gets shown in the ui as though it > was a presence status.
When the user chooses "invisible to all", does that overrride all the other rules already defined (e.g., don't allow any communications with UserX)? I think that in order to do this right, you'd need to modify the active rule to now include invisibility, not define a standalone rule for it. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
