Tue, 6 Oct 2015 12:43:06 +0100 Kevin Smith <kevin.sm...@isode.com> wrote:
> On 5 Oct 2015, at 14:42, Matthew Wild <mwi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > XEP-0191 is simple and efficient. It does one job, which is the one > > that most users need and expect - blocking someone they not longer > > want communication with. This operation is available on just about > > every modern communication system they could be familiar with. > > > > Other problems that XEP-0016 could be applied to, such as > > unsolicited spam/flooding, should be taken care of in other ways, > > instead of trying to solve everything (inadequately) with one > > protocol. > > I agree. > > Deprecating 16 in favour of 191+the one extra common use case sounds > good to me. > > /K Not sure I understand the sentence. Wouldn't it be better to find "other ways" in blocking "unsolicited spam/flooding" *before* deprecating XEP-0016? Because after deprecation nobody will perform this task.
