XSF Discussion - 2020-06-06

  1. lovetox

    pep., i think its in comparison to instant room

  2. lovetox

    reserved means, you send a join presence, but then the room is not open for other people

  3. lovetox

    its reserved for you until you finish the configuration

  4. lovetox

    only afterwards the room is unlocked

  5. lovetox

    in comparison to instant room, where you send a join presence, and the room is instantly unlocked

  6. lovetox

    means in the time you need to finish the configuration, nobody else can come and take the room from you :)

  7. pep.

    ah reserved not reversed.

  8. larma

    According to introduction of XEP-0249, it is useful because of privacy lists (XEP-0016) which is deprecated by now. Shouldn't XEP-0249 be deprecated then as well?

  9. lovetox

    larma, 0016 is not the only way to block contacts not in your roster

  10. pep.

    Well the effect that privacy lists had on MUC invites hasn't gone is it. There are still people blocking messages from strangers as of today

  11. lovetox

    its only one of them

  12. Zash

    XEP-0191 or anti-spam mechanisms could get in the way

  13. pep.

    Maybe that can be reworded

  14. larma

    Zash, I'd say that if you 191 block a muc domain or muc, you don't want to receive invites to it

  15. Zash

    Makes sense

  16. lovetox

    not really

  17. lovetox

    its not about blocking a muc domain

  18. larma

    also you don't add mucs to your roster (typically) so if you can't receive the invite, how would you receive the messages?

  19. lovetox

    191 has a default blocking option

  20. lovetox

    of contacts not in your roster

  21. Zash

    Does it?

  22. lovetox

    all MUCs are not in your roster

  23. Zash

    I don't see any default, wasn't that one of the things you could do with 0016 that doesn't have an equivalent yet?

  24. larma

    I don't see 191 having a feature "block everything not from roster"

  25. lovetox

    hm, damn i think i mixed that up with mam preferneces

  26. larma

    and then again, if the MUC mediated invite is blocked, muc messages itself are blocked as well

  27. Zash

    There are server plugins that blocks everything from non-contacts tho

  28. lovetox

    larma, a direct invite is not send by the MUC

  29. larma

    lovetox, sure, wasn't taling about direct invite

  30. lovetox

    you have contact in your roster

  31. lovetox

    you want to invite him to a muc

  32. Zash

    That kind of blocking isn't great tho, for reasons like this.

  33. lovetox

    how would you do it if there is no direct invite?

  34. larma

    How would you do it with direct invite? If you receive a direct invite but have the MUC blocked, you can't join it.

  35. lovetox

    why would the MUC be blocked?

  36. lovetox

    there is a simple option in most clients and servers

  37. lovetox

    block contacts that are not in your roster

  38. lovetox

    that does not mean the jids are added to a block list

  39. lovetox

    that just means messages are not routed

  40. lovetox

    i can receive a message from you, because you are in my roster

  41. lovetox

    i cant from the MUC

  42. larma

    the MUC is not in your roster, so you wouldn't receive messages from a MUC if you block messages from JIDs not in the roster

  43. lovetox

    it seems you dont know how this feature works

  44. larma

    *i am not talking about direct invite*

  45. lovetox

    obviously the server starts routing messages once i sent a presence to the MUC

  46. Zash

    larma: What you say makes sense.

  47. lovetox

    and your client routes messages once you sent out a join presence

  48. larma

    lovetox, that's not obvious to me at all. Why would sending a presence change the blocking behavior?

  49. lovetox

    because then the user made a decision to join a groupchat, obviously he wants to receive messages

  50. Zash

    larma: Directed presence may be used in the same way as roster entries, in theory.

  51. larma

    So the rule is not "block message from JIDs not on roster" but "block message from JIDs not on roster or where you didn't send a presence to the bare jid since the session started"?

  52. larma

    Zash, well roster entries are per bare jid, presences are per session?

  53. lovetox

    yes thats how servers and clients would implement a "block contact not in your roster" option

  54. Zash

    larma: True, which is why I said 'in theory'. :)

  55. larma

    lovetox, "would implement" - which server does implement that?

  56. lovetox

    and yes larma its not perfect there are surely edge cases where this does not work as intended

  57. lovetox

    but its better than getting spammed every day

  58. lovetox

    ejabberd for example last i heard

  59. lovetox

    did not try it though

  60. lovetox

    they have a captcha challenge also

  61. larma

    spam blocking and privacy lists/blocking commands are obviously different features

  62. lovetox

    Gajim has this option also implemented client side

  63. lovetox

    and i think C has this also?

  64. larma

    lovetox, sure and client side blocking can see that the mediated invite is from a contact

  65. Zash

    larma: So in theory I think you're correct that we don't need 0249, but in practice we might still.

  66. lovetox


  67. larma

    Zash, because servers have non-standard behavior that doesn't cope with mediated invites

  68. lovetox

    how would the real jid end up in the mediated invite?

  69. lovetox

    do i have to put it there?

  70. larma

    lovetox, it does, no?

  71. lovetox


  72. Zash

    larma: and overzealous anti-spam mechanisms

  73. larma


  74. larma

    invite from=real-jid

  75. lovetox

    larma but is this validated?

  76. lovetox

    can i not put any jid in there?

  77. larma

    the server puts it there

  78. larma

    the muc server

  79. Zash

    Assuming a MUC server sent it

  80. larma

    True, but that's also easy to find out by disco'ing the from jid of the mediated invite message

  81. lovetox

    i wonder if the server always puts in the real jid

  82. Zash

    Another thing: In the case of a public channel, there's no real need for the MUC to mediate the invite, so direct invite is simpler.

  83. lovetox

    but yes this would work client side

  84. larma

    Zash, yeah, might be true

  85. lskdjf

    > larma: So in theory I think you're correct that we don't need 0249, but in practice we might still. Zash right now, 0249 is in the compliance suite. and I think that's a too vague reason to keep it there... (just to remember for the next iteration of the compliance suites)

  86. larma

    Zash, although honestly I mostly use invites in non-public rooms. If I invite people in a public room, I usually do this using a normal message with xmpp:-uri 😉

  87. lovetox

    but why are you looking into this larma ? do you want to get rid of direct invites in your code?

  88. Zash

    larma: Heh, tho that touches on the whole stuffing semantics into <body> issue :/

  89. larma

    lovetox, I'd like that longterm we focus on one type of invites instead of having two

  90. larma

    would also be fine to go with direct invite only (although that means more work for members-only MUCs)

  91. Zash

    What does the current Compliance Suite author, Ge0rG, think?

  92. lovetox

    larma, with direct invite only you can only invite people you know the real jid

  93. larma

    lovetox, you mean with mediated invite only?

  94. lovetox


  95. lovetox

    no, can i send a direct invite as PM?

  96. lovetox

    i remeber i could invite people from a anonymous muc to another muc

  97. Zash

    xmpp:-uri passes there too

  98. lovetox

    ah no you cant

  99. lovetox

    direct invite have to be type=normal i think

  100. lovetox

    thats why you can only reach real-jids

  101. Zash

    Doesn't say that tho, just no type attr in the example

  102. lovetox

    .. wait i have to look up my code

  103. lovetox

    there was definitly something type=normal

  104. lovetox

    ah no it was the mediated invite that MUST be type=normal

  105. lovetox

    again i mixed things up

  106. lovetox


  107. lovetox

    so i could do a Invite PM to a anonymous room participant

  108. lovetox

    with direct invite

  109. lovetox

    hm what about if you are not admin, and cant add people to the member list

  110. lovetox

    but the muc lets you invite people

  111. lovetox

    then you have to use mediated invites

  112. larma

    lovetox, true, but also very weird setup if I can invite but not add to member list

  113. lovetox

    not that weird, only because i want people to be able to invite other people

  114. lovetox

    does not mean i want them to change the MUC configuration

  115. lovetox

    also members can never add to the member list

  116. lovetox

    so how are you making all people that join to admin?

  117. lovetox

    manually on invite?

  118. lovetox

    but i have no real eperience with members only rooms, how do whatsapp groups work?

  119. Zash

    with mediated invites the muc can make the invitee member when an existing member invites someone

  120. lovetox

    can everybody invite everybody in a whatsapp group?

  121. lovetox

    yes Zash, but i need him to be admin

  122. Zash

    huh why?

  123. Zash


  124. lovetox

    hm wait

  125. lovetox

    i think we are thinking of only having direct invites

  126. Zash

    With mediated invites, the MUC can decide who's allowed to invite others

  127. lovetox

    if i have only direct invite, i need to add the member to the member list

  128. lovetox

    hence i need to be admin

  129. Zash

    Yes, that's a problem with direct invites.

  130. lovetox

    if i want that other people i invite, can also invite other people, again i have to make them admin

  131. Zash

    Don't you need to be owner even?

  132. lovetox

    to make someone admin

  133. lovetox

    yes indeed

  134. lovetox

    so i need to make everyone owner ..

  135. lovetox

    so we can just throw roles out of the window

  136. Zash

    I'm not sure where you are going with this

  137. lovetox

    in a world without direct invite, if i want that people i invite can invite other people within a member only room

  138. lovetox

    i have to make all of them owner

  139. lovetox

    ah *without mediated invite i meant

  140. larma

    However, mediated invites do not allow me as a recipient to verify the original sender

  141. larma

    So mediated invites are crap, but the only thing we have for members-only-not-everyone-owner rooms

  142. Zash

    Send both \o/

  143. Zash

    larma: I think there's been loose talk of having an invite token that you get from the MUC and send to someone, who uses it when joining.

  144. Zash

    And suddenly there's 3 ways to send an invite! :D

  145. Zash

    Comedy comes in threes, or what's the saying

  146. larma

    Can we make a new XEP that allows members to add others to members list without sending an invite and without being admin? Then we can do send both as a fallback until all servers allow members to add other members...

  147. jonas’

    do Editor Team members need to be XSF members?