Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
Isn't this spec, for example, just special casing presence-out:deny ?
"
<iq type='set' id='invisible'>
<query xmlns='jabber:iq:privacy'>
<list name='invisible-all'>
<item action='deny' order='1'>
<presence-out/>
</item>
</list>
</query>
</iq>
"
Yes it is. But then you need access to a server and client that support
privacy lists. And you need to fiddle with your privacy lists all the
time to add and subtract invisibility, which it seems to me introduces
the possibility of messing up the definitions (not to mention the
bandwidth usage). A small, focused command seems more useful to me.
In our client for example, there is a 'invisible to all' list which just
does the above - invisibility actually gets shown in the ui as though it
was a presence status.
When the user chooses "invisible to all", does that overrride all the
other rules already defined (e.g., don't allow any communications with
UserX)? I think that in order to do this right, you'd need to modify the
active rule to now include invisibility, not define a standalone rule
for it.
Peter
Just changes the active list entirely, not edit the current list - that
would be too cumbersome.
Which is precisely my objection.
My active list has a rule that blocks a spammer from communicating with
me. I go invisible by changing the active list. Now the spammer's junk
gets through.
Doesn't that seem sub-optimal?
Peter
You can always edit and come up with a custom list, and change what is
shown in the drop down menu (i guess) - but the off-the-shelf list does
invisible to all only.
It is common for users to toggle between invisible to all vs other
privacy lists - custom lists are usually pretty rare. And they can use
custom list editor.
That being said, it is easy for clients to manage order such that
different regions deal with different aspects (so not much change in
order value is required between edits).
Mridul
