This seems to be a good reason to keep things as they work :). Pavel
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:21:22 +0200 Jonathan Schleifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Am 14.08.2008 um 15:12 schrieb Kevin Smith: > > > Well, in this case what I imagined was a server that's happy to host > > short-lived one-to-one-to-many-to-many chats at randomly selected > > room names, but doesn't want to be hosting public chat rooms such as > > [EMAIL PROTECTED], but it's probably unimportant. > > > This is exactly what I also had in mind and is very desirable IMO. > Anyway, why change it? It doesn't make it too much more complicated > for the server and there are already clients using that. So why > remove something that is already in use? > > -- > Jonathan > -- Web: http://www.pavlix.net/ Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net OpenID: pavlix.net
