On 25 June 2015 at 09:27, Kevin Smith <kevin.sm...@isode.com> wrote: > Thinking a bit about the MUC2 stuff. MUC1 had Anon/semianon/nonanon. We’ve > pretty much killed off fully anonymous rooms in MUC1. > > Can people share their thoughts on usecases for semi-anon, please? 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). > > 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. >
Some thoughts: I think almost every MUC room I'm in is semi-anonymous. The only exception I could immediately find was the Openfire chatroom, open_c...@conference.igniterealtime.org - it seems pretty unlikely that this is by accident, but perhaps every server does this by default, and none of the admins have ever noticed. Removing a widely deployed feature doesn't strike me as a viable option. I (personally, mind you) would be happy if pseudonymized users in chatrooms reduced available features. For example, it seems bizarre that in the typical [semi-]anonymous MUC, I can query a vCard of an "anonymous" user. So for example I can join the XSF chatroom, and while I cannot discover Zash's jid, I can find his real name and email address. This strikes me as nuts. I also suspect that if we promoted the usage of anonymizers as a day-to-day way to shield one's jid, this might have detrimental effects on chatroom abuse. Dave.
