XSF Discussion - 2020-06-06

pep., i think its in comparison to instant room

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

its reserved for you until you finish the configuration

only afterwards the room is unlocked

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

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

ah reserved not reversed.

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?

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

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

its only one of them

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

Maybe that can be reworded

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

Makes sense

not really

its not about blocking a muc domain

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

191 has a default blocking option

of contacts not in your roster

Does it?

all MUCs are not in your roster

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?

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

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

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

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

larma, a direct invite is not send by the MUC

lovetox, sure, wasn't taling about direct invite

you have contact in your roster

you want to invite him to a muc

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

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

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

why would the MUC be blocked?

there is a simple option in most clients and servers

block contacts that are not in your roster

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

that just means messages are not routed

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

i cant from the MUC

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

it seems you dont know how this feature works

*i am not talking about direct invite*

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

larma: What you say makes sense.

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

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

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

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

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"?

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

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

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

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

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

but its better than getting spammed every day

ejabberd for example last i heard

did not try it though

they have a captcha challenge also

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

Gajim has this option also implemented client side

and i think C has this also?

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

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

hm

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

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

do i have to put it there?

lovetox, it does, no?

probably

larma: and overzealous anti-spam mechanisms

https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html#example-58

invite from=real-jid

larma but is this validated?

can i not put any jid in there?

the server puts it there

the muc server

Assuming a MUC server sent it

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

i wonder if the server always puts in the real jid

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.

but yes this would work client side

Zash, yeah, might be true

> 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)

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 😉

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

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

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

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

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

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

lovetox, you mean with mediated invite only?

hm

no, can i send a direct invite as PM?

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

xmpp:-uri passes there too

ah no you cant

direct invite have to be type=normal i think

thats why you can only reach real-jids

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

.. wait i have to look up my code

there was definitly something type=normal

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

again i mixed things up

sorry

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

with direct invite

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

but the muc lets you invite people

then you have to use mediated invites

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

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

does not mean i want them to change the MUC configuration

also members can never add to the member list

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

manually on invite?

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

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

can everybody invite everybody in a whatsapp group?

yes Zash, but i need him to be admin

huh why?

who?

hm wait

i think we are thinking of only having direct invites

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

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

hence i need to be admin

Yes, that's a problem with direct invites.

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

Don't you need to be owner even?

to make someone admin

yes indeed

so i need to make everyone owner ..

so we can just throw roles out of the window

I'm not sure where you are going with this

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

i have to make all of them owner

ah *without mediated invite i meant

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

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

Send both \o/

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.

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

Comedy comes in threes, or what's the saying

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...

do Editor Team members need to be XSF members?