XSF Discussion - 2021-07-17

  1. Ellenor Malik

    no southerntofu, only the server has closed

  2. mdosch


  3. mdosch

    Afaik the client is still maintained.

  4. Ellenor Malik

    > mdosch wrote: > Afaik the client is still maintained. yes

  5. Sam

    arc: did your JID change? I'm getting DNS lookup errors on concordance.io

  6. Sam

    I was just going to see if you're free sometime this week to collaborate on https://pad.disroot.org/p/XSF_Fiscal_Host_Rules

  7. Zash

    Not just DNS, ~$ whois concordance.io NOT FOUND

  8. Sam

    (also anyone else who wants to leave comments, please do)

  9. Zash

    I expected 300+ pages of legalese. Pleasantly surprised.

  10. Sam

    I'm sure the Open Collective stuff covers all that :) ours is just a policy about who can take donations and how they're used, so I don't think it needs much other than "board and treasurer decide"

  11. Guus

    Status codes 170/171 of MUC (a privacy-related signal to indicate that 'public logging' has been enabled/disabled), does that apply to, say, MAM?

  12. Guus

    if MAM is enabled in public room, I'm guessing that its archive is ... public?

  13. Guus

    The XEP references to an HTTP-based exposure of the logging in a for-example - that makes me question the intent.

  14. Sam

    That would be my interpretation. Whereas if fetching MAM is members-only or something I'd say it's not publicly logged

  15. Zash


  16. Sam

    Sorry, I mean "MAM counts if it's a public room" is also my interpretation

  17. Zash

    If you can read the history without joining then very yes.

  18. Guus

    so status 170 is basically "muc#roomconfig_enablelogging == true", unless "muc#roomconfig_membersonly == true" ?

  19. Zash

    Do you include MAM in enablelogging?

  20. Guus


  21. Zash


  22. Guus

    I'm only now noticing that muc#roomconfig_enablelogging has a label that describes _public_ logging.

  23. Guus

    I had always interpreted it as any logging.

  24. Zash

    I believe there's a `muc#roomconfig_enablearchiving` too somewere

  25. Zash

    Possibly non-standard

  26. Zash

    Ah, yeah, prosody uses that

  27. Guus

    well... given that `muc#roomconfig_enablelogging` is defined as "public logging" ... it's pretty much equal to 170 vs 171?

  28. Zash


  29. Zash


  30. Guus

    so no point in even pulling memberonly status into play.

  31. Guus

    which kind of makes it a duplicate? but one that needs not be queried, but is pushed to you when joining?

  32. Zash

    Can you read the history without being a member/participant? Yes → 170. No → 171.

  33. Guus

    As an aside: I dont' think 171 is pushed upon join (only when a config change happens)

  34. Zash

    Whether that is done via MAM or HTTP, eh.

  35. Zash

    Guus, according to the spec or in practice?

  36. Guus

    I think i'm going to make it equal to the state of muc#roomconfig_enablelogging - as that's also defined as "public logging"

  37. Zash

    But how is _that_ determined then?

  38. Guus

    having that enabled, would always cause logs to be generated. Even if they're not public yet, they could be in the future.

  39. Guus

    I'm ignoring the 'public' part of that definition.

  40. Guus

    If logging, then 170.

  41. Zash

    Is logging and archiving the same thing?

  42. Guus

    (not saying that I'm thinking that this 100.0% fits the definition, but I think it's as close as any other definition, and definately easier to implement :P )

  43. Guus

    In my book, yes. What do you consider to be different between the two?

  44. Guus

    MAM vs the standard 'keep x messages' in pre-MAM things?

  45. Zash

    Not entirely sure

  46. Guus

    Ok, thanks. I'll tentatively take the easiest route, until someone convinces me otherwise :)

  47. flow

    logging could just mean that the conversations are logged and potentially made public somehow. archiving is similar, but I somehow would expect that you can query the archive via XMPP, which I wouldn't say is a requirement for logging

  48. ksmmxxcmcckm


  49. ksmmxxcmcckm


  50. Holger

    Guus, Zash, flow: There's clearly a difference for members-only rooms, no? (You said so initially but I'm not sure that distinction got lost with "I'm ignoring the 'public' thing?)

  51. Holger

    Guus, Zash, flow: There's clearly a difference for members-only rooms, no? (You said so initially but I'm not sure that distinction got lost with "I'm ignoring the 'public' thing"?)

  52. Holger

    Difference being that MAM access is guaranteed to be limited to group members, which isn't true for 'logging'.

  53. flow

    Holger, probably, but can't construct a difference from the top of my head at the moment. Care to elaborate?

  54. Holger

    These days I answer questions before they were asked!

  55. flow

    Not that this does not sound sensible, but where is this guaranteed?

  56. Holger

    0313 IIRC

  57. Holger

    If I'm wrong it should be added 😉

  58. flow

    hmm, but the archive could also be restricted to e.g. owners only, no?

  59. flow

    but eventually I think we are on the same page

  60. Holger

    > A MUC archive MUST check that the user requesting the archive has the right to enter it at the time of the query and only allow access if so.

  61. flow

    at least when I hear "MUC logging" I think of web logs, and when I hear "MUC archiving" I think of MAM

  62. Zash

    flow, same

  63. Zash

    I still think the end result should matter, not the method. Can the general public access the logs/archive or not?

  64. Holger

    But the MAM method gives a guaranteed answer to that question

  65. Holger

    The 'logging' method doesn't.

  66. Holger

    (For members-only rooms.)