Alexander Tsvyashchenko wrote: <snip/>
>>> Well, in fact I think I've found already one case when this is a >>> problem, not only for collections listing, but also for their removal >>> and for preferences storing, see my message: >>> >>> http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2007-November/017205.html >>> >>> Basically, current approach means we have no real control over the >>> messages with bare/domain JIDs: so I can nor delete messages from/to >>> icq.example.com transport, neither forbid auto-archiving them without >>> affecting all messages to all ICQ users. >> >> Yes, but do you exchange messages with icq.example.com? We have the same >> problem in MUC rooms -- you can't block all users at example.com from >> joining the room without at the same time blocking example.com itself >> from joining the room. Is that a big problem? I don't think so. We use >> the same matching method in MUC, privacy lists, and now also message >> archiving. If we want to fix that, I suggest that we fix it everywhere. > > Well, I think you have better overview as to judge if that's a big > problem or not, as I can use here only my, quite limited, experience. > > To provide at least some example, if I haven't screwed up smth in SQL > queries, my current stats for collections database (basically almost > single-user installation) show the following, starting from 2007.06.01 > (somewhere around that date both ICQ and MSN gateways were installed and > operational on my server): > > Total collections with [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 229 > Total collections with msn.example.com: 124 (about 54% of all collections) > > Total collections with [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 837 > Total collections with icq.example.com: 88 (about 10% of all collections) > > Of course I do not claim to be representative user here: I use ICQ and, > especially, MSN gateways not that much recently, but error messages from > gateways (wich comprise all of the "direct" messages from these domain > JIDs) are coming regardless whether I use these gateways or not. Why are you logging error messages? :) > You may very well say (and be 100% right) this is not a problem that > should be solved on XMPP specs level ;-) I agree it isn't that hard to > just modify gateways so that they do not send users any direct error > messages. > > However, I believe that specs should be flexible enough to cover > real-world usage cases - and it seems that with at least one such > real-world usage case I have no real way to manage my archived > collections/messages using the specs (so, remove or block from auto > archiving error messages from gateways) - as to me this may imply lack > of specs flexibility in this particular area, so even if particular > problem with gateways can be sorted out by other means - I still thought > it may be a good idea at least to discuss it. Yes but I think this issue applies more broadly (e.g., to MUC and privacy lists also). So we need to think up a more general solution. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
