On 25 Jun 2015, at 15:28, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 6/25/15 2:27 AM, Kevin Smith wrote: >> Thinking a bit about the MUC2 stuff. MUC1 had Anon/semianon/nonanon. > > s/had/has/
I think ‘had’ was right. Anonymous rooms were removed in 0.6 by a certain “PSA” :) Now it has semianon and nonanon. >> Can people share their thoughts on usecases for semi-anon, please? > > Semi-anonymous rooms are like IRC channels. Draw your own conclusions for > whether that's good or bad. I don’t think that’s true, is it? Having or not having @ in a particular channel doesn’t affect your ability to whois a user on IRC to the best of my knowledge. > >> It’s not entirely clear to me what these are (users who want >> anonymity seem to already be using throw-away JIDs to achieve that, >> instead of relying on MUC configuration). > > We didn't have throw-away JIDs (well, SASL anonymous JIDs anyway) in the old > days. I didn't mean SASL ANONYMOUS when I said throw-away JIDs, I meant that people are registering single-purpose JIDs. There was a brief discussion in xsf@ earlier that if people wanted anonymity they’d be better served by someone writing an anonymising proxy. The only use case we came up with so far that wasn’t better served with throw-away/singleuse JIDs (at first glance; I’m happy to admit I’m missing things here) was a company-internal one where an anonymising proxy would probably be appropriate. >> There seems to be some significant merit in having MUCs always be >> non-anonymous in MUC2, to solve some of the addressing messes we’ve >> found ourselves in. > > I do think that a system needing anonymity (say, a helpline) can handle that > using anonymous JIDs, not anonymous roomnicks. Great. /K
