jdev - 2023-02-27

About message moderation (xep-0425)… - Should messages containing a <moderated> element have a stanza-id? - In the example 5*, there is none, but if a MUC service has stanza-ids, it should associate one to any message, even if they don't have a body, or am I missing something? - Again about this example 5, `to="room@muc.example.com/macbeth"`, I think this is mistake? It should be a "real JID", eg `somebody@example.com/poezio123`, and not a "participant JID". - is it OK to have the room bare JID for `moderated by=`? This last question is related to some other services not providing "moderated by whom". I could use a pseudo nicknameresource like "/system" or something, but it feels a little "more right" to just use the room JID in this case. Any thoughts about this? * https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0425.html#example-5

nicoco, the text says the service sends the "that message was moderated" message to everyone, those messages should normally be archived and would thus have stanza-id.

I'd also assume that to/from behave like normal broadcast messages and that the example has some mistakes

Also missing a `>` ?

Oh, no, it's just hidden by the overflow scroll thing

Zash: thanks! it's what I assumed but wanted to make sure because "examples are not normative" is too hard for me to apply without asking, sorry

also, remember that this is an Experimental XEP, it might change in the future

Like, in the near future, when https://github.com/xsf/xeps/pull/1270 gets merged

I'm not scared by experiments, I am a scientist ;). I'll happily update slixmpp to reflect this once merged and/or implemented by clients

About the "moderate by=room JID without resource part", I actually have a broader 0045 question. what is the standard or standardish way for a muc to display "system messages"? Is it OK to use the room bare JID? or should it always be "a pseudo participant", eg `room@muc.ex.com/system`?

It happens to have messages sent from the room jid yeah

"System messages" would come from the bare room JID.

biboumi uses that for channel modes changes that don't translate well for example ✏

Old MUC (or maybe even groupchat 1.0?) components used to send more messages from the bare room JID about various stuff

thanks! so if break clients, it's on biboumi, good, this won't be the reason I'm banned from the xmpp community.

as long as you don't send <presence> from the bare JID! :)

hahaha oh wait

... you do because avatars :(

oh yes I do. those sweet participant avatars!

Specifically about `<moderate by=room/nick>`, I think I leave it blank if the current nick of the moderator is not known

(in the Prosody mod_muc_moderation)

hum but https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0425.html#tombstones > The <moderated/> element MUST have a 'by' attribute specifying the JID of the moderating entity. and https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0425.html#schema > <xs:attribute name='by' type='xs:string' use='required'/>

bah

what do you set it to if it's unknown then, ... !summon JC

as in, if I do a moderation action without being joined, as is usually how I do it because I use a command line tool, there's no nickname

I'm also interested in JC's answer here. "no by" or "by=room bare JID" are both fine by me and I have no opinion about which is better.

The module does look for your reserved nickname, if available uses that

"I think I leave it blank if the current nick of the moderator is not known" I think I'd leave it blank anyway

(if that's a thing)

To avoid people coming at moderators directly

"a moderator moderated a message"

I think there are legitimate cases where it's removed by someone not even in the room. imagine a massive attack on a whole muc service with awful images. I can imagine service-wide moderation tools for the muc service admin who is not necessarily in all the rooms…

nicoco, feel like typing this up in an email to standards@? :)

(so I don't have to and can carry on my lazyness)

or I guess ^C^V into xsf@ would work

alright, let's email

offtopic proposal: should we rename the muc into XMPP Development (jdev) ?

Yes please :)

move the description to the name? sure

(description is "Jabber/XMPP Development")

I'm fine with that too