On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Matthew Wild <[email protected]> wrote: > On 29 May 2012 18:03, Matthew Miller <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On May 29, 2012, at 10:53, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> >>> On 5/29/12 10:36 AM, Matthew Wild wrote: >>>> On 29 May 2012 17:12, Philipp Hancke <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> XEP-0186 move to Draft so that we can deprecate XEP-0018 and XEP-0126. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'd note that in 3.1.1. the server MUST NOT send presence probes when >>>>> being >>>>> the client is in invisible mode. Of course that makes invisibility much >>>>> less >>>>> useful ;-) >>> >>> Perhaps that is my diabolical plan! ;-) >>> >>>> I've mentioned before here that this is one of the few changes I would >>>> like to make to the XEP - add an attribute such as probe='true' to >>>> allow the client to ask the server to probe contacts (with the >>>> consequence of not necessarily being so "invisible" any more). >>> >>> That slightly complicates this ultra-simple extension. Since the 'probe' >>> attribute would default to FALSE, I'd be fine with adding this feature >>> (as long as people understand the implications). >>> >> >> RFC 6121 specifies probes be sent 'from' a bare JID 'to' a bare JID. I >> think this limits the presence leak severely, but that's my interpretation >> (-: > > It's only a matter of time before someone in the Prosody community > writes a module that fakes available presence for users it receives a > probe from :)
This is true - but they might get surprising results, even on the network as it already is. /K
