On 6/25/15 2:27 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
Thinking a bit about the MUC2 stuff. MUC1 had Anon/semianon/nonanon.
s/had/has/
We’ve pretty much killed off fully anonymous rooms in MUC1.
I think those were never supported.
Can people share their thoughts on usecases for semi-anon, please?
Semi-anonymous rooms are like IRC channels. Draw your own conclusions for whether that's good or bad.
It’s not entirely clear to me what these are (users who want anonymity seem to already be using throw-away JIDs to achieve that, instead of relying on MUC configuration).
We didn't have throw-away JIDs (well, SASL anonymous JIDs anyway) in the old days.
There seems to be some significant merit in having MUCs always be non-anonymous in MUC2, to solve some of the addressing messes we’ve found ourselves in.
I do think that a system needing anonymity (say, a helpline) can handle that using anonymous JIDs, not anonymous roomnicks.
Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://andyet.com/
