On 2013-07-06 14:42, Evgeniy Khramtsov wrote: > 3) Regarding 5.3 "JID matching". I think we should allow bare servers > JIDs in always/never lists and process them as *@server.com (i.e. any > JID carrying server.com should match). This will allow us to add the > whole servers to the matching lists.
While this has precendent in other XEPs (eg MUC, privacy lists), it gets tricky if you'd want to get messages sent eg from a bare host, like notifications. It would also need to specify what happens if there's a conflict, like example.com in always and [email protected] in never. My implementation compares with, always and never fields based on bare JIDs. Supporting the more complicated privacy lists comparison method would complicate it without really gaining much for most users, who I don't think will be using more than a default rule. -- Kim "Zash" Alvefur
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
