* Jonas Wielicki <jo...@wielicki.name> [2017-10-16 18:38]: > 4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?
As I understood it, the reasoning for the last namespace bump to mam:2 was to offer the guarantee that stanza IDs are added to live messages as per XEP-0359. So if the client encounters a <stanza-id/> tag (with the expected attributes), it can be *sure* this wasn't added by an entity other than the one controlling the MAM archive. However, for carbon-copied messages, this is only a SHOULD clause, not a MUST: "servers SHOULD include the element as a child of the forwarded message when using Message Carbons (XEP-0280)". Doesn't this render the guarantee useless, as clients can *not* rely on stanza IDs encountered within carbon-copied messages? Holger _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
