Thanks for warning me about this flame. ;) Peter Saint-Andre typeth: | Please keep your moralizing and psychologizing to yourself. Or shall we | start a list such as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just pointing out that a technology is not free from such side effects. And I told you I'm not insulting anyone - I'm just putting to discussion if it could actually be a positive simplification to remove that feature. Both for technological optimization and user-perceived transparency. | They do? Evidence, please. I wrote XEP-0191 (Simple Communications | Blocking) because I thought developers found privacy lists to be too | complex, but when I really pushed the issue they said "oh no, really | privacy lists are fine and we've all implemented that protocol, so let's | move on already". I had no evidence, I just read some comments of yours stating privacy lists weren't so cool. If this is no longer the vatican's opinion, let's go for those repeaters which carry a bit overhead, but are still a huge improvement over XEP-0033 or no optimization at all. But don't forget who suggested to keep some state on the receiving side in the first place.. ;) | Do you have a special way to divine the thinking of the IESG? I suppose I was there, I met the folks in 1999 who later authored IMPP. I bought the IESG t-shirt. And I even rejected a job offer from Redmond, because I don't believe in proprietary messaging technologies. Call me stubborn or evangelic.
