On Oct 06, 2008, at 18:08, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
Yes, I agree, privacy lists give us all we need for invisibility.
Some might see this as abusing privacy lists, but IMO, that's what
they are for. They are to block presence or messages to specific
users and/or groups. And "all users" could also be seen as a group.
What I personally like about privacy lists: I can have my "own
invisibility mode", which means I'm invisible to all except a few
persons.
I can also have more than one invisiblility mode: For example one
that just hides me from groups that are often annoying. Ideally, the
client would have a sub-menu invisible where I can define my own
invisible modes via privacy lists.
There's only one thing I'm missing in privacy lists: Time-based
privacy lists. So you can say "I want to be invisible to group A, B,
C etc. from 8pm to 8am". This would be for example useful if you
don't want to get annoyed by your co-workers in the evening. The
server would then automatically enable the privacy list if you
selected a time for it.
I'm sorry to say, but you're not the target audience for 90% of the
XMPP clients. I'd get laughed out of the #adium channel if I'd propose
a user interface that would be required for a privacy list generator
that would be able to generate the lists you described.
In addition, if you don't want to wipe the user's privacy lists that
are already there, you also need a semantic analyzation of them, which
is probably worth writing a paper on artificial intelligence on that
topic.
If I just let the user do that, I'd have to ask the user to learn
programming to manage the interface.
In addition to that, if two instances of my client, or another client
implementing privacy lists, connect to the same account, all bets are
off. Anything could happen.
The privacy lists are very potent, but their complexity is just too
much for mere mortals.
andy
