On 25 Jun 2015, at 15:48, Sam Whited <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 25 Jun 2015, at 15:28, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email protected]> wrote: >>> 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 true in the sense that a nick in IRC (or a semi-anonymous MUC) is > effectively an ephemeral identity. Eg. if you're talking to someone on > IRC and they part and then join again, you can't be sure it's actually > the same user (unless they've registered the nick; let's ignore the > fact that you can probably whois and snag their IP address... maybe > it's dynamic and it changes between your conversations). However, once > you throw JIDs into the mix it doesn't matter if the nick is > ephemeral, you can always see that the JID is the same, meaning that > whomever you're speaking with at least has access to the same account.
I think that says “Ignore the bit that makes it untrue” is probably detrimental to this argument :) In my mind, the closest analogy to MUC nicks is IRC nicks, and the closest analogy to JIDs is the whois result. It’s not a clean mapping to start with, because just having someone’s nick (especially on registered-nick services) is enough to be able to identify someone across the whole service, they’re not per-MUC. /K
