On 12/22/2014 04:19 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > Slightly confused by this. XEP-0191 is server-side enforced, so the > behaviour will be applied and controlled by the server, not the client.
Gajim uses Privacy lists without the XEP-0191 frontend. Sorry, I was unclear there. > This would mean that probes still get sent, which seems inappropriate. My language probably needs to be tweaked (and updated in several other places in the XEP); outgoing probes (from the user to the blocked client) should remain the same (dropped so the user appears offline). Incoming probes should be handled like they currently are: From XEP-0191: > For presence stanzas (including notifications, subscriptions, and > probes), the server MUST NOT respond and MUST NOT return an error. The server must not respond, but it could still pass notifications on to the user. > Otherwise we're in the slightly weird situation that we're predicating on > remote servers sending presence without a probe - this is quite possible, > but could lead to some very odd behaviour when this get out of sync. Also, > there's the RFC 3921 optimization; that reduces the presence to just > online/offline in some cases. Good point; I hate to potentially leak information by sending probes to the server. I'll have to think about this one. —Sam -- Sam Whited pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3 https://blog.samwhited.com
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
