This thread got a lot of good discussion, but then rather fizzled out. What's the general standards body "next step" for things like this? Keep prodding the list until a consensus forms, or is there some procedure for bringing a formal proposal?
Thanks, Sam On 12/21/2014 08:19 PM, Sam Whited wrote: > Hi all, > > XEP-0191 (Blocking command) specifies that once a contact is blocked, no > stanzas are delivered from them to the user: > >> Once the user has blocked communications with the contact, the >> user's server MUST NOT deliver any XML stanzas from the contact to >> the user. The block remains in force until the user subsequently >> unblocks commmunications with the contact (i.e., the duration of the >> block is potentially unlimited and applies across sessions). > > However, Gajim (and possibly other clients that use privacy lists) seems > to block everything but presence information. > > From a user perspective, this seems like the expected behavior (I block > someone, they can't receive information about my presence or send me > messages, but I can still see their presence unless they block me). > > Am I interpreting everything correctly, and if so, is this something > that would be considered for change? I'd like to propose that the line > from XEP-0191 be rewritten to read something like: > >> Once the user has blocked communications with the contact, the >> user's server MUST NOT deliver any XML stanzas from the contact to >> the user except for presence stanzas. ... > > Best, > Sam > -- Sam Whited pub 4096R/54083AE104EA7AD3 https://blog.samwhited.com
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
