Should "Setting someone's affiliation from 'none' to something else" be considered an affiliation change?
pep.
What's the use-case for this https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#example-176 (the <message/>)
pep.
What was the idea behind it
pep.
Anything to be worried about if someone discovers the address of a MUC this way by getting affiliated?
Menelhas left
Alif Radhityahas left
lovetox
pep., affiliation "none" is a normal user joined in a non-members-only chat
Menelhas joined
lovetox
if you change his affiliation to "owner"
lovetox
you dont want to inform him?
pep.
affiliation "none" is the absence of affiliation, really. So that's the entire XMPP world in a non-members-only chat that isn't affiliated with the room :P
pep.
Note the <message/>, it's not a presence, the user isn't joined in this case.
lovetox
yeah and if you affiliate someone, and he is not joined, the room tells him via message
lovetox
because it cant via presence
lovetox
i think the intention is quite clear
lovetox
users which get affiliated in a room should be notified about it
pep.
Why is it a MAY and why would a room not notify though?
lovetox
because its a optional feature
lovetox
which is not a MUST
pep.
Thanks captain :)
pep.
My question was, is there any reason this shouldn't be implemented
xnamedhas left
lovetox
that was not your question at all, if you ask me, you posted an example and asked
lovetox
> What was the idea behind it
pep.
Anyway, now that's my question
lovetox
if you take a guess from me, a xmpp spec should only enforce things which are essential for it to work, this thing seems not essential to MUCs working
lovetox
especially in the light that "invites" also exist
larmahas joined
lovetox
though that may be not exactly the same
pep.
Yeah ok that's not what I'm asking, still, sorry. I'm wondering if there's a reason someone would be against implementing this
lovetox
The implementation note says:
Out of courtesy, a MUC service MAY send an out-of-room <message/> if a user's affiliation changes while the user is not in the room; the message SHOULD be sent from the room to the user's bare JID, MAY contain a <body/> element describing the affiliation change, and MUST contain a status code of 101.
lovetox
this was added very early in the spec
zhoskahas left
lovetox
so i would say from the word "courtesy", it was regarded as something thats not necessary at all, just a nice thing someone could do, but nothing someone should be forced to
lovetox
but of course thats all guessing :) maybe you find the one who put it there
zhoskahas joined
Wojtekhas joined
pep.
Yeah.. and no security considerations or anything it seems. The thing is I added that as a MUST in 0463, I remember there was a reason for it, but I can't remember it. I'm trying to now :x
lovetox
from reading that xep, it seems not essential to inform out of room members
moparisthebest
Yea that sounds fun security wise, I bet there exist clients you can force join to a room with an affiliation change
lovetox
moparisthebest, you receive a message and trigger a very specific join presence?
lovetox
this can not happen on accident
lovetox
a developer wanted it that way
qyhas left
lovetox
i dont see any problem here, even IF the client would join
lovetox
i mean many client join if you send them an invite to a room automatically
lovetox
thats a basic feature
pep.
I guess if someone is added in affiliations it's that it's ok for them to learn the JID, I guess.✎
lovetox
i wonder though which server has implemented this out of bound notificaiton
lovetox
i would like to test if Gajim acts correctly
lovetox
i definitly never tested that
pep.
I guess if someone is added in affiliations it's that it's ok for them to learn the JID ✏
pep.
Yeah me neither. I learned of it when I wrote the spec, talking with people
moparisthebest
Joining unsolicited MUCs would be a bad thing no? iirc clients should only accept invites from people on their roster at most
moparisthebest
Otherwise it'd be great for spam and other kinds of abuse
lovetox
of course, you can limit that
lovetox
but if a family member opens a groupchat, i dont want to be asked if i want to join
lovetox
or at least a client should offer a option where i can set auto accept
lovetox
whatsapp does not ask you if you want to join for example
lovetox
im not sure how it would benefit a spammer if instead of sending you the spam directly
lovetox
adds you to a muc
lovetox
but i guess maybe someone wants to have many people joined or something
Ok, the reasoning behind sending a message for affiliation updates is so that clients don't have to poll.
moparisthebest
I can mass invite people to a muc on some remote server, spam them, and none know my jid
pep.
If someone wants to have many people joined they can already send invites
moparisthebest
(without looking into their server logs or XML console)
Zash
why you don't auto-accept invites from non-contacts
moparisthebest
Yep
pep.eyes Conversations
moparisthebest
But I bet clients exist that take affiliation change like "oh a change for a muc, oh I'm not in that muc, better join"
moparisthebest
Anyway a fun thing to test one day
pep.
Actually I doubt this specific feature is implemented much
lovetox
moparisthebest, i bet no client does anything on that message
pep.
"oh yeah another message with payloads I don't understand"
lovetox
its really a obscure feature, i dont even know which server supports it
lovetox
the chance is more likely that you break a client or surface a bug with that message
lovetox
because devs will not have accounted for that
lovetox
funny zash that article about fractal
pep.
I'm reading logs saying prosody 0.12 possibly does
lovetox
i went through the same thought process vs rooms and private chats
Zash
lovetox, it's been posted here before I'm sure :)
lovetox
the author cam to the conclusion they need to separate apps
norayrhas joined
lovetox
i think the "Workspace" feature does deal with that propblem rather well
lovetox
in Gajim for example
Zash
probably not even the first to come to that conclusion, but they blaged it and I have in it in my browser history
Zash
oh
Zash
lovetox, are you saying per-workspace setting for whether to auto-follow invites?
lovetox
what, no the article says, because they only have one side bar they dont want group chats and private chats fight for real estate
lovetox
and activity sorting is useless
lovetox
because mucs have much noise
lovetox
to their conclusion whas, make 2 apps, one focused on private chats, one on group chats
lovetox
while in Gajim we simply made workspaces, and now you can switch between your group chat workspace, and private worksapce
lovetox
and we dont need two apps
Zash
I mean that it makes more sense to auto-join when you get an invite from a contact in the private chat use case, while in a work team chat app might make less sense to follow invites by default
pep.
What was the saying again? You can solve any problem by adding one more abstraction layer?
lovetox
its exactly the opposite
lovetox
in a work env you need to follow all invites
lovetox
and thats als what MS Teams does
lovetox
i heard never complain anyone about it
lovetox
there is no spam in work env
pep.
It may be tricky to know it's a work env though and invites can be followed without worries? If people aren't in your contacts
Zash
either way, could it not make sense to have a setting per workspace then?
lovetox
yes im not saying the idea is bad, i just talked about completely other thing
lovetox
the problem is though
Zash
or should we just go back to the IRC way of having the server decide what channels you are in? :P
lovetox
a workspace in Gajim does not group contacts per see
lovetox
it just has open conversations
techmetx11has left
lovetox
i would say a account setting is better
lovetox
this is my work account, so accept all invites
lovetox
this is my private, so dont
Tobi_has joined
lovetox
but i think the "contact is in my roster" is also good enough
Maranda
Oops wrong room
Maranda
Sorry 😅
Maranda
So having the registered FTTH SFP module inclusive of VLAN and PPPoE parameters and a thing with 12 SFP ports is there a reason to not just bypass the ISP CPE...? 🤔
pep.
Wrong message order?
Zash
Brought to you by eventual consistency?
lennarthas left
techmetx11has joined
lennarthas joined
homebeachhas left
Matrix Traveler (bot)has left
homebeachhas joined
Matrix Traveler (bot)has joined
Schimon_has left
Guushas left
Guushas joined
Yagizаhas left
qyhas joined
thomaslewishas joined
thomaslewishas left
antranigvhas left
xnamedhas joined
Trunghas left
Tobi_has left
Dele Olajidehas left
Dele Olajidehas joined
Dele Olajidehas left
goffihas left
qyhas left
qyhas joined
goffihas joined
miruxhas left
poliuxhas joined
xnamedhas left
trollgehas left
trollgehas joined
Tobihas left
MSavoritias (fae,ve)has left
trollgehas left
goffihas left
trollgehas joined
trollgehas left
Kevhas left
Alif Radhityahas joined
PapaTutuWawahas left
lissinehas left
pep.
fwiw, I figured out that <message/> affiliation update thing.
xnamedhas joined
pep.
And I have an update coming for 463.
> The introduction of a MUST on &MESSAGE; updates is necessary to ensure an observer (joined in the room) sees affiliation updates for offline users too, as these don't have any presence and thus their affiliation change wouldn't be broadcasted otherwise.