On 5/23/20 12:24 PM, Mathieu Pasquet wrote: > > On 12.09.2017 12:45, Georg Lukas wrote: >> * Sam Whited <s...@samwhited.com> [2017-09-12 01:52]: >>> I had assumed that the server would be storing things and we didn't need >>> to send it back, but maybe that's not always the case. This does seem >>> like the kind of thing we might need to store or send back somehow. >> >> Yeah, this is going to be challenging. I'd really love to get the >> message content and not just the sender JID on my spam reports. That >> would require either MAM or some ring buffer of messages, which is all >> not-so-neat, or the client to reflect the offensive message inside the >> report, which is also challenging on it's own, and adds the security >> problems Kim outlined. >> >> A trade-off solution might be to make MAM an (optional) prerequisite. A >> client supporting MAM could add the <stanza-id/> of an offensive message >> into the report, giving the server a sufficiently large time window to >> obtain the message from its MAM store. >> >> If either entity lacks MAM support, we fall back to blocking the JID >> without further knowledge of the actual message content. > > Sorry for the necromancer update, but would it not make sense to allow > stanza-id elements as children to the <spam/> and <abuse/> elements?
+1 It never can hurt to provide additional information, especially if it is optional. - Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org _______________________________________________
