On Fri Jul 22 22:07:40 2011, Joe Hildebrand wrote:
On 7/21/11 2:15 PM, "Matthew A. Miller"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> The case Cridland is talking about is if there's a single
available resource.
> In that case, not unlocking on presence updates might not be too
harmful.
There's only one available resource that you *know* about. You
might be
blocked presence-out on multiple other resources. The client does
not have
enough information to choose in any case that I've heard yet.
=> If you use privacy in a stupid way, then stupid things may happen.
The only case of this I can think of is when you have directed
presence from only one resource, in which case there's arguments for
no unlocking, since the messages may end up at a resource the account
owner doesn't want to reveal, making it awkward to respond.
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
