Ok, just... couldn't this be at least partially automated (not to have the sure check himself)? If it's not possible, never mind.
Pavel On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 20:08:55 -0600 Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pavel Simerda wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:47:17 -0600 > > Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Pavel Simerda wrote: > >>> On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:55:28 -0600 > >>> Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> Pavel Simerda wrote: > >>>>> But then what is an invitation for? You have to make someone a > >>>>> member and send him an invitation message. But for this, you > >>>>> have to be able to add members. > >>>> I don't think the concept of an invitation-only room makes much > >>>> sense, especially because we don't have ways of delivering secure > >>>> invitations (right now invitations are more social interactions, > >>>> not technical interactions, and I think we might want to leave it > >>>> that way). > >>> But i thought I've seen some members-only rooms. > >> Oh sure, one example is [EMAIL PROTECTED] :) > >> > >> /psa > > > > But that means we have some sort of room authorization :). And we > > should know what happens if you invite someone to a room that's > > members-only and he's not a member. > > > > Because just sending a direct invite is no good. Making him a member > > and sending a direct invite seems natural to me. > > I've added an implementation note about that. > > /psa > -- Web: http://www.pavlix.net/ Jabber & Mail: pavlix(at)pavlix.net OpenID: pavlix.net
