On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Sergey Dobrov <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/19/2011 10:25 PM, Kevin Smith wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Sergey Dobrov <[email protected]> wrote: >> The behaviour here is pretty much by design - the PEP defaults are >> there for mutually shared information (e.g. extended presence) between >> people with mutual presence subs. If you want a one-sided approach, >> using manual subscriptions instead of the caps-based magic seems like >> a better fit. >> >> /K >> > don't you think that such behavior is not consistent with simple > presences? I mean, most of protocols that based on PEP are just > extensions for simple presence mechanism and that's really unuseful that > it's impossible to use them in a sheaf with subscriptions. A PEP service > can't be implemented outside a jabber-server, so why we can't allow it > to follow "probe" presences?
Because sending probe presences isn't the same as sending available presences - and if it was, it'd be a presence leak. /K
