Mridul Muralidharan wrote: > Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> 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 >> > > You can always edit and come up with a custom list, and change what is > shown in the drop down menu (i guess) - but the off-the-shelf list does > invisible to all only.
Right. And that seems problematic. All your spam protection (etc.) goes out the window! Perhaps layered privacy lists are the answer here... Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
