Pedro Melo wrote something on Jaiku that made me think. (Always dangerous).
His scenario was basically: - Two (presumably) mutually subscribed resources, A and B. - A is in Do Not Disturb. B isn't. - A sends B a message. - B responds with another message. - A responds to B's reply with an auto-responder whining about being disturbed. A couple of things strike me here: 1) A really shouldn't be auto-responding to a response. 2) This could be simplified if, when sending the initial message, A sent directed presence to B. 3) Auto-responders, and possibly automatic messages in general, really ought to be marked as such, to avoid an even worse case, where B promptly auto-responds back, and a messaging loop occurs. As it happens, in this particular case, B was in fact a bot, and cheerfully posted the autoresponse to (at least) Jaiku. It wasn't Pedro's bot, incidentally, not that it really matters. I was curious as to what developers thought about the situation, and whether any clients do in fact send directed presence to roster people when in states such as dnd. Finally, if dnd really does mean Do NOT Disturb At All Ever, then I'm in raised-eyebrow territory, because I thought it meant Do Not Disturb Unless Important - since if you really don't want to be disturbed, then there's that "unavailable" presence type. But what's important is tricky - so perhaps it's an application of XEP-0155, and we negotiate that between clients. Any thoughts? Dave. -- Dave Cridland - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/ - http://dave.cridland.net/ Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade _______________________________________________ JDev mailing list FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20 Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________
