-
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.
-
pep.
Or.. allow the list to be extensible or sth, but that's.. maybe unnecessary trouble
-
MattJ
The list is already extensible
-
MattJ
The reasons are URIs, and there is a registry defined in the XEP
-
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
-
pep.
Oh TIL about the registry thing
-
pep.
Well "more options for everyone" wouldn't help though
-
pep.
It's "the right options for this circle" :/
-
pep.
(can't reread the spec just now)
-
MattJ
I'm not exactly sure what the problem is that you're trying to solve
-
MattJ
"abuse" is generally referring to breaking ToS or other policies, and "spam" is about unsolicited advertising
-
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
-
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.
-
Ge0rG
I'd classify as spam if it's a nuisance and as abuse if it's bullying or other attempts at suppression
-
jonas’
fun
-
jonas’
my reading a while back was abuse as "violating server use policies"
-
mjk
yeah, seems to be there needs to be a separate category for bullying people, as opposed to abusing a service
-
Ge0rG
but bullying is also abuse!
-
Ge0rG
everything is abuse.
-
mjk
yes
-
mjk
including spam
-
Ge0rG
if it's merely a violation of the server ToS, I wouldn't even report it. Only if it actually affects a user
-
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
-
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)
-
MattJ
A community can adapt them or extend them, or whatever
-
MattJ
So I don't see the problem
-
pep.
MattJ, how? Would they also have to fork clients? :/
-
MattJ
If you want a different UI, sure?
-
pep.
And we all know how painful this is, maybe that's best if we can avoid it :P
-
MattJ
Then don't :)
-
pep.
:/
-
MattJ
I still don't see a problem that needs solving
-
pep.
Ok..
-
pep.
Well I'm not sure how to explain it better
-
Peter Waher
MattJ: Who approves and publishes reports to the BL? And is there a process to report new JIDs to the list?
-
MattJ
I suspect most apps will just pick one
-
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✎ -
MattJ
Peter Waher, answered on https://xmppbl.org/
-
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 ✏