On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Peter Saint-Andre<[email protected]> wrote: > > 1. Who has implemented XEP-0203? Please note that the protocol must be > implemented in at least two separate codebases (and preferably more).
Tkabber uses XEP-0203 timestamps as well as XEP-0091 ones (203 is preferrable). > > 2. Have developers experienced any problems with the protocol as defined > in XEP-0203? If so, please describe the problems and, if possible, > suggested solutions. There is oen problem with all current methods of delayed delivery indication. The problem is that any entity may easily forge message timestamp. If I send a message with added <delay xmlns='urn:xmpp:delay' stamp='2002-09-10T23:08:25Z'/> then my adressee will believe that this is an offline message which were stored on server (for several years). I'm not sure if it's a serious issue, but surely it worth at least security consideration notice. As for the solution, I could suggest that any server which routes the stanza should add a delay timestamp indicating when it reseived the message (with some additional attribute (e.g. router='jabber.org') similar to Received header in email. Stripping any delay element from all stanzas isn't a solution because they are used legitimately in MUC history. Cheers! -- Sergei Golovan
