* Daniel Gultsch <[email protected]> [2015-05-05 17:13]: > 2015-05-05 16:30 GMT+02:00 Georg Lukas <[email protected]>: > > One possible workaround would be to mark all MUC PMs, like it is done by > > prosody: http://hg.prosody.im/trunk/rev/09151d26560a > > Then, a client could use that information to determine if it just > > received a MUC PM from a MUC it is not joined into. > > This sounds like a very simple but usable solution. > I'm going to implement this in Conversations tomorrow. > I though about this earlier but never got around to actually write the code > for this. > I hope that other servers will jump on board with this quickly.
ejabberd now tags MUC PMs in the same way.¹ > > Another issue: If both /A and /B are joined to the MUC using the same > > nickname, the question arises whether the MUC component should copy a > > PM to both resources, or send the PM to one and a carbon of it to the > > other (and how the priority/routing is supposed to be handled in that > > case). > > Defenitly not both like it is done currently. (Or has been done?) Sending just one copy makes sense if the clients receive carbon copies anyway; but if they don't, it might go against expectation that delivery for /A now depends on whether/how /B joined the same room. (Then again, the routing behavior when multiple clients are used without carbons probably goes against the expectations of most users anyway.) Holger ¹ https://github.com/processone/ejabberd/commit/7297b23508
