-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Robert McQueen wrote: > I'm trying to implement invisibility on an XMPP server which doesn't > implement jabber:iq:privacy, namely Google Talk. > > If disco shows jabber:iq:privacy isn't available, I've found that > jabberd2 and some other servers show up <feature > var='presence-invisible' /> which allows you to do <presence > type="invisible" /> for the Bad Old Way (tm) of invisibility. However, > on Google Talk this is rightly regarded as a syntax error worthy of > instant disconnection. > > I've also found some clients implement invisibility by sending <presence > type="unavailable" /> to the server, which on Google Talk seems to be > interpreted just like invisible. The server still sends presence to you, > and other people's messages are returned with an offline error, but when > you send messages out to people they are able to reply (for how long? I > don't know...). This feels odd to me - is this behaviour peculiar to > Google's servers, or is it how a normal XMPP server whould behave too? > > Regards, > Rob >
Some servers support the old-style <presence tyle='invisible'/> (which was deprecated for various reasons when we published the XMPP RFCs). Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre Jabber Software Foundation http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEMqs6NF1RSzyt3NURAhtcAKCoUrmubT6oL6ipleRdqkoqVvIdEQCfYlOM KA/jtE/cxLorLQrSA0a/Lk4= =7oVR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
