On Thu Mar 18 20:25:30 2010, Kirk Bateman wrote:
Sonny,
It is very relevant to be able to enforce showing the real jid by
the administrator in some situations. It also makes it easier to
handle jids that spam muc groups too.
Yes, but there's a policy and a request.
So if I try to join [email protected], I might be
expecting it to be anonymous, so nobody knows my shameful secret. But
if an admin decides to make it a non-anonymous room, I'll discover
that too late - even discoing the room beforehand leaves a window of
opportunity to expose my shame.
Whereas, if I can provide a "I must be anonymous" as part of my join,
then the join could be rejected, and my secret is safe.
Similarly, many of our rooms - [email protected] springs
to mind in particular - are anonymous, even though many of the
participants might not care, or possibly even *want* their jids known.
So I might join saying "I want to expose my jid". I can't see a
reason why you'd want to insist on that as a prerequisite to joining
the room, mind, but I don't see the reason to enforce anonymity.
Dave.
I was wondering if let the MUC administrator/configuration choose
to show real JID or not is relevant.
Why don't let the participant choose if he want to show is real
JID or not? Just like he choose his nickname.
If the user don't specify if he want to show his real JID or not,
the MUC will decide (depends on the MUC configuration) for him
which ensures "compatibility" with MUC/server which doesn't
implements this.
So basically, I think Sonny's (basically) right.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email protected] - xmpp:[email protected]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
