2017-05-30 16:28 GMT+02:00 Kevin Smith <[email protected]>: > On 30 May 2017, at 15:18, Daniel Gultsch <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 2017-05-30 16:02 GMT+02:00 Dave Cridland <[email protected]>: >>> Presence, mind, I'm not so sold on - I think it's significantly less >>> important, since presence is stateful rather than an event. But I'm >>> not averse to it - I'd just argue that if it causes problems, just >>> don't bother delay-stamping. >> >> I have no hard feelings regarding presence however if we stamp with >> the account jid it wont cause problems. >> And people are really obsessed with 'Last Seen' Whatapp-like >> information. (That's how I stumbled over the problem in the first >> place.) So in their interest it would really help to have a more >> detailed time information on presence as well. (Mind you CSI can >> easily delay those information by multiple hours) > > I’m not sure, given the peculiarities of presence probes and S2S and etc., > that using presence for this is particularly reliable. I could wrong (again).
For this kind of audience and in lack of a 'proper' mechanism for this faking it seems to be good enough. Also stamping presences is done elsewhere as well. (Presences received after signing in are usually stamped). A lot of clients show 'Available since…' or 'Away since…' information somewhere in the UI. So reliable or not SM/CSI should not behave different here. cheers Daniel _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
