XSF Discussion - 2023-03-16

  1. pep.

    Re 377, I also asked recently in here the difference between abuse/spam, I think I'd like to suggest removing one of the other from the spec, just have one type of report. Some of these don't mean the same in different circles. And I'd argue admins would probably treat these in the exactly same queue.

  2. pep.

    Or.. allow the list to be extensible or sth, but that's.. maybe unnecessary trouble

  3. MattJ

    The list is already extensible

  4. MattJ

    The reasons are URIs, and there is a registry defined in the XEP

  5. MattJ

    I generally agree with you that the current two options in the XEP are vague, but I'm not sure I would go as far as to remove them

  6. pep.

    Oh TIL about the registry thing

  7. pep.

    Well "more options for everyone" wouldn't help though

  8. pep.

    It's "the right options for this circle" :/

  9. pep.

    (can't reread the spec just now)

  10. MattJ

    I'm not exactly sure what the problem is that you're trying to solve

  11. MattJ

    "abuse" is generally referring to breaking ToS or other policies, and "spam" is about unsolicited advertising

  12. MattJ

    Since spam is generally always against policies, and some non-advertising content can also be unsolicited and "spammy", I agree there is some overlap between the two

  13. MattJ

    But I don't think that alone is reason enough to drop any attempt to provide some categories. Just bucket everything into 'abuse' if you don't care about it.

  14. Ge0rG

    I'd classify as spam if it's a nuisance and as abuse if it's bullying or other attempts at suppression

  15. jonas’


  16. jonas’

    my reading a while back was abuse as "violating server use policies"

  17. mjk

    yeah, seems to be there needs to be a separate category for bullying people, as opposed to abusing a service

  18. Ge0rG

    but bullying is also abuse!

  19. Ge0rG

    everything is abuse.

  20. mjk


  21. mjk

    including spam

  22. Ge0rG

    if it's merely a violation of the server ToS, I wouldn't even report it. Only if it actually affects a user

  23. pep.

    What I'm trying to solve is that a community may want to adapt these terms for their usage. I don't know why I get hanged up on this spec, it should be about the same for every other spec that exposes or encourages the use of specific terminology

  24. moparisthebest

    I'm not sure why it matters, terms are nearly the same and the response to them is gonna be the same right? (Ban probably)

  25. MattJ

    A community can adapt them or extend them, or whatever

  26. MattJ

    So I don't see the problem

  27. pep.

    MattJ, how? Would they also have to fork clients? :/

  28. MattJ

    If you want a different UI, sure?

  29. pep.

    And we all know how painful this is, maybe that's best if we can avoid it :P

  30. MattJ

    Then don't :)

  31. pep.


  32. MattJ

    I still don't see a problem that needs solving

  33. pep.


  34. pep.

    Well I'm not sure how to explain it better

  35. Peter Waher

    MattJ: Who approves and publishes reports to the BL? And is there a process to report new JIDs to the list?

  36. MattJ

    I suspect most apps will just pick one

  37. pep.

    So I'll leave it at this until it bothers me again and I find a solution I like (that isn't encouraging people to fork) or.. dunno

  38. MattJ

    Peter Waher, answered on https://xmppbl.org/

  39. pep.

    So I'll leave it at this until it bothers me even more and I find a solution I like (that isn't encouraging people to fork) or.. dunno