On 12 August 2015 at 11:20, Holger Weiß <[email protected]> wrote:
> * Dave Cridland <[email protected]> [2015-08-12 10:54]: > > For MUC, I'll summarize our conversation online as servers already have > to > > track directed presence to chatrooms; it should be relatively low-cost to > > check responses and mark those as chatrooms as needed, and then perform a > > lookup for Carbons purposes. > > That way you can make sure a client won't receive carbons of PMs of MUCs > he's not joined to. A remaining problem is that multiple clients might > be joined using the same nick name, in which case you don't know whether > the MUC service delivers PMs to all or just one of them.น > > That's a good point. To expand, we could have the servers send Carbons to nick-shares, in fact, but the MUC server might be sending duplicates (and three devices would then yield one PM and two Carbons each). I don't think we can solve this without specifying MUC nick-sharing properly, which probably opens many cans of worms. As Kev says, this is just another problem that needs solving in MUC2. > Holger > > น Cf. http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/2015-May/029825.html >
