On Thu Sep 10 15:05:02 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 9/10/09 4:18 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Thu Sep 10 11:14:56 2009, Fabio Forno wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Peter Saint-Andre
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Similarly, I suggest that we remove it from the JID
>> > matching rules in XEP-0016, XEP-0045, etc.
>> >
>> > Objections?
>>
>> No, since all the cases where we may need the concept of
subdomain
>> could be solved at application level with other extensions (e.g.
I'm
>> thinking of a case we worked on time ago where we had to
consider a
>> subdomain trusted and autoaccept all subscribe from that
subdomain)
>>
>>
> I would argue that there is no such thing as a subdomain, from the
> perspective of XMPP.
I'm getting close to saying that (I'm not quite sure what you mean
by
"subdomain" so I don't know what I'm committing to by agreeing with
you).
Buying me a beer every day for the next three years - didn't you see
the small print?
But seriously, you've made my point - the term "subdomain" is
meaningless in most circumstances. The email address
"[email protected]" has no relation to "[email protected]" aside
from a (likely) common ancestor in their management. And even that's
not certain, given addresses like "[email protected]",
which was (back when it existed) certainly not under the direct
control of Demon Internet.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email protected] - xmpp:[email protected]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
