Remko Tronçon wrote: >> Imho this is not a protocol issue, but a client issue > > This has been discussed in length before, and the conclusion was that > there is no user friendly *and* correct way to do invisibility on top > of privacy lists, or any kind of simple operation (such as blocking). > Psi has a 'simple' user interface for blocking contacts on top of > privacy lists, but if you used *any* other client to do some privacy > list operation, then it could break this. We show a warning 'your list > may not work', but this is just a horrible user experience. And things > get even nastier if you do invisibility, with all kinds of problematic > corner cases. > > Maybe you should look up the original discussion. > > You cannot fully abstract something that is fundamentally complex. > Sooner or later, a user of your abstraction will bump into a problem, > and will not understand it unless he understands the concepts > underlying your abstraction.
I agree, which is why I've been pushing for: 1. Simple blocking (XEP-0191). 90% of the time all you want to do is block some luser, not use the full power of privacy lists. 2. Simple invisibility (XEP-0186). Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
