Thanks MattJ - I was already asleep by that time. We can do bikeshedding over what type of search query would be expected by many users, but that won't matter much anyway. Having slept on it for a night: would it make sense to make the 'simple' variant just another flavor, instead of a distinct different field? I would not expect any UI to sensibly offer two different fields to the end-user. On top of that, I suspect that most flavors will allow for some kind of syntax that will make them do simple/exact matching.
Guus
To be clear: I'm not objecting this to move forward as-is - but maybe the above would be a bit of an improvement.
MattJ
That means if a server only supports advanced queries, and a client doesn't support the UI for that, a simple search couldn't be performed
Guus
How do you mean?
MattJ
The whole point of the simple search is to have a sensible common baseline for interop
adiaholichas joined
MattJ
That's the point of standard protocols in the first place - interoperability, and knowing that sending a certain thing will cause a certain outcome. With arbitrary search syntax, that doesn't happen and it's bad for an open ecosystem.
MattJ
Standardizing the field is almost pointless if nobody knows how to use it
Kevhas joined
Guus
Not a hill for me to die on, but I'd argue that search fields are used successfully all the time, without the majority of the users realizing what specific syntax they could use in search queries.
archas left
thndrbvrhas left
Guus
But you're absolutely right in that behavior wouldn't be completely consistent across implementations.
MattJ
Such search fields generally don't accept regex and weird syntaxes like `foo^3`
Guus
I'm only not sure if that's to big of a deal in the vast majority of cases. We effectively have that situation now.
MattJ
We don't have that situation now because the vast majority of clients don't implement this
MattJ
It seems to me it is only being used in closed deployments, where interop is not an issue
Guus
Maybe you're right - I personally have no much use for search, apart from through our administrative interfaces.
Guus
In any case, you seem to feel more strongly about this than me, and I'm happy to go either way.
MattJ
I think most clients store and search history locally anyway, rather than using server-side search. Particularly when E2EE is in use a lot of the time anyway.
djorzhas left
Vidakhas left
MattJ
But there are use-cases where it would be handy, in MUCs for example
Guus
agreed.
djorzhas joined
djorzhas left
Vidakhas joined
yushyinhas left
djorzhas joined
konstantinoshas left
yushyinhas joined
Kevhas left
Vidakhas left
adiaholichas left
Vidakhas joined
adiaholichas joined
sebastianhas left
sebastianhas joined
adiaholichas left
Vidakhas left
stphas left
Vidakhas joined
Alexhas left
Alexhas joined
Zash
Searching the logs of this very room could be nice
intosihas left
intosihas joined
harry837374884has left
adiaholichas joined
MattJ
Email sent
Guus
Thanks MattJ
harry837374884has joined
neshtaxmpphas left
neshtaxmpphas joined
Alexhas left
cloudedhas left
djorzhas left
cloudedhas joined
intosihas left
jinxdhas joined
Andrzejhas joined
Kevhas joined
thndrbvrhas joined
intosihas joined
stphas joined
Andrzejhas left
Kevhas left
Alexhas joined
Vidakhas left
Vidakhas joined
Andrzejhas joined
djorzhas joined
Vidakhas left
intosihas left
Vidakhas joined
jinxdhas left
Vidakhas left
intosihas joined
jinxdhas joined
Andrzejhas left
Vidakhas joined
adiaholichas left
antranigvhas left
Kevhas joined
intosihas left
antranigvhas joined
intosihas joined
papatutuwawahas joined
pasdesushihas left
nikhilmwarrierhas left
Kevhas left
antranigvhas left
Maranda[x]has left
nikhilmwarrierhas joined
Maranda[x]has joined
pasdesushihas joined
Fishbowlerhas left
Fishbowlerhas joined
Vidakhas left
neshtaxmpphas left
neshtaxmpphas joined
Vidakhas joined
Andrzejhas joined
mhhas left
antranigvhas joined
robertooohas left
Kevhas joined
wladmishas joined
wladmishas left
adiaholichas joined
wladmishas joined
Vidakhas left
harry837374884has left
Vidakhas joined
robertooohas joined
antranigvhas left
harry837374884has joined
debaclehas left
Kevhas left
antranigvhas joined
mhhas joined
papatutuwawahas left
harry837374884has left
harry837374884has joined
Vidakhas left
Vidakhas joined
stphas left
stphas joined
Vidakhas left
goffihas left
nikhilmwarrierhas left
Ingolfhas left
Ingolfhas joined
Vidakhas joined
adiaholichas left
Alexhas left
Alexhas joined
nikhilmwarrierhas joined
Vidakhas left
intosihas left
intosihas joined
Vidakhas joined
Samhas left
Samhas joined
Vidakhas left
phrykhas joined
phryk
Does anybody know of an existing implementation of XEP-0383 (burner JIDs)?
Alexhas left
pep.
Nope. I think I'd be interested in one though..
Samhas left
Samhas joined
Vidakhas joined
neshtaxmpphas left
neshtaxmpphas joined
Calvinhas joined
adiaholichas joined
Alexhas joined
Titihas left
Andrzejhas left
intosihas left
intosihas joined
adiaholichas left
harry837374884has left
harry837374884has joined
inkyhas left
adiaholichas joined
adiaholichas left
anamulhaquehas joined
Sam
I still really want to get rid of semi-anonymous chat rooms and just do 'if you want to be anonymous, ask the much for a burner JID and use that to join'
Sam
Ask the MUC, even.
Andrzejhas joined
qy
i agree
Zash
The MUC gives you `room@muc.host/nick`. Such a difference!
yeah, we all know how well NAT worked out as security...
stphas left
Zash
And you advocate more NAT?
pep.
I disagree with this comparison though
qy
no i'm likening burner JIDs to IPv6
krauqhas joined
inkyhas joined
pep.
(Or I think I do)
L29Ahhas left
L29Ahhas joined
Kevhas joined
qy
pep.: howso?
stphas joined
kinetikhas joined
goffihas joined
xnamedhas left
chipmnkhas left
chipmnkhas joined
xnamedhas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
adiaholichas left
stphas left
adiaholichas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
cloudedhas left
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
Kevhas left
stphas joined
Andrzejhas left
cloudedhas joined
Apollohas left
antranigvhas left
antranigvhas joined
harry837374884has left
harry837374884has joined
anamulhaquehas left
Apollohas joined
Ingolfhas left
stphas left
BASSGODhas left
stphas joined
neshtaxmpphas left
neshtaxmpphas joined
BASSGODhas joined
antranigvhas left
playerthreehas left
antranigvhas joined
antranigvhas left
Andrzejhas joined
Kevhas joined
intosihas left
intosihas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
pasdesushihas left
antranigvhas joined
Half-Shothas left
homebeachhas left
Matthewhas left
uhoreghas left
Half-Shothas joined
Matthewhas joined
homebeachhas joined
uhoreghas joined
djorzhas left
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
RayTutuhas joined
RayTutuhas left
djorzhas joined
pasdesushihas joined
Kevhas left
debaclehas joined
Kevhas joined
pablohas joined
playerthreehas joined
inkyhas left
Ingolfhas joined
antranigvhas left
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
pablohas left
rebeld22has joined
Paganinihas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
pasdesushihas left
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
antranigvhas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
phryk
Burner JIDs would still expose the service the person is coming from, tho – so I like the current solution better for channels. Tho I assume burner jids could be used in private channels with E2EE which is something I'd like.
Burner JIDs would take quite some work to prevent correlation (e.g. via OMEMO fingerprints)
phryk
That's not user friendly. I want the service to do as much of the heavy lifting for privacy/opsec as possible. Good opsec is notoriously hard and I'd like to lessen the burden of that.
adiaholichas left
phryk
Mhh, right. Clients implementing burner JIDS and E2EE should probably generate new keys for every burner JID…
pasdesushihas joined
MattJ
It's not clear to me from the XEP whether it is just about identities, or more like a temporary account
Zash
Outsourced opsec?
intosihas left
intosihas joined
phryk
Zash, :P
phryk
I mean, MUCs hiding JIDs are essentially that.
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
Zash
Personally I'm mostly happy about the property where it doesn't make it trivial to jump into a public channel, scrape all the JIDs and then send spam to them.
intosihas left
intosihas joined
Zash
Not like I don't use the same nickname, profile picture, language, typing patterns, time of activity everywhere (that you know of)