Mridul Muralidharan wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> 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 >> > > Just changes the active list entirely, not edit the current list - that > would be too cumbersome.
Which is precisely my objection. My active list has a rule that blocks a spammer from communicating with me. I go invisible by changing the active list. Now the spammer's junk gets through. Doesn't that seem sub-optimal? Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
