On 3/5/09 9:31 AM, Mickael Remond wrote: > Hello, > > Pedro Melo wrote: > >> As for controlling presence-out (aka invisible mode), I don't see any >> value so far on adding that to the roster protocol. > > I see several functional reasons: > - Privacy list have to be defined in advance. > - Most people have no privacy list (do not accept anyone in their roster). > - People still want to connect in unexpected situation and do not get > incoming conversation at times when it is not adequate. > > I see one technical reason: > - Roster takes space in memory on the server: With large number of users, it > makes > sense to allow the user to only load / activate what he needs for the session. > > For this three reasons, we will have to implement something like this in > ejabberd. It would be nice if there is a standard to do that, but we > need it anyway, so we will have to make something anyway.
Do people need to limit all outbound presence (XEP-0186) or do they need to limit it in a more flexible manner? Can XEP-0186 be updated to handle that (e.g., specify by roster group)? Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
