On 12 October 2015 at 20:32, Evgeny Khramtsov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:27:51 -0300 > Ben Langfeld <[email protected]> wrote: > > > So your argument is in-fact that there's nothing wrong with Privacy > > Lists and therefore the XSF should continue promoting it as a good > > quality specification? > > No, probably it should be improved. The problem with Privacy Lists is > that developers are trying to implement it as is and end up with > iptables-like interface. > That's exactly it. One client, used exclusively, can construct useful and valid rules to express particular semantics (like invisibility, for example). Two different clients can't recognise each other's rules and present any kind of useful UX. What's needed is a set of protocol which express, semantically, what the user is trying to accomplish, such that different clients can universally understand the semantics of the user's desires, and represent accordingly. Dave.
