On Thu Apr 28 08:52:21 2011, Yann Leboulanger wrote:
And worth: I don't know that it's blocked. If I use tkabber, set
their anti-spam rule, then I use Gajim, it cannot even know that my
server supports privacy rules because it doesn't reply to
disco#info.
Well, obviously the solution is to always use Gajim, then.
More seriously, you're right, but this is yet another reason why
XEP-0016 is subtlely flawed in various cases - it's all too easy to
shoot yourself in the foot like this.
For a start, at a quick reading it seems entirely possible to prevent
even changing your own privacy list.
The easiest way to fix this (IMHO) is probably to send the user a
type
error IQ whenever he is trying to send a type get/set one to a JID
that
is blocked from answering.
That does not fix your problem however and I maintain that the
solution
to that is to allow entities that you want to receive IQs from to
send
you IQs :).
That will partialy solve my problem: At least I'll get an iq error
and it'll be ok with RFC.
And then yes, I'll contact tkabber devs to whitelist the server in
their anti-spam rule.
Or there's XEP-0191.
What prevents people using that? I know you can't do invisibility
through it, but there's always XEP-0186 for that. Otherwise it seems
vastly simpler and a much clearer specification, too.
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
