Hi, * Matthew Wild <mwi...@gmail.com> [2015-11-06 14:14:26 CET]: > On 6 November 2015 at 09:48, Rhonda D'Vine <rho...@deb.at> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > * Daniel Pocock <dan...@pocock.pro> [2015-10-29 17:09:36 CET]: > >> If a developer has their own XMPP account elsewhere or simply doesn't > >> want to use it, any requests to be in their roster will simply not be > >> responded to. Should we provide an option to automatically reject > >> requests sent to accounts that are not used or automatically give some > >> reply scripted by the developer? > > > > I think a forward possibility would be useful. The LDAP already has a > > field for Jabber ID. I guess it might make sense to forward things to > > there; I'm not sure if it's possible to send stuff back somehow then > > though. > > You're basically right. Forwarding could be done, but XMPP is not > email - it's not possible to forward with the same 'from' address, so > it would be a bit unintuitive. Likewise there's no way they could > reply back via debian.org to use the address as an alias.
Right, but that information could be added to the forwarded message. Of course people could be concerned about that forward bot (which could even take care of replying) be facilitated as sort of a MITM attack pattern, so it might make sense to have people run such a bot themself on some host they trust. Not so sure about how this would work if it's more than just plain messages though, like OTR (which could be encapseled somehow) or other things like voice/video chat. Those most probably won't be possible to tunnel through a dedicated bot; but maybe my knowledge of the underlying protocol is just too limited to see how that might be possible. Just some thoughts, Rhonda -- Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los | Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los | Wir sind Helden Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los |
