Opened 12 years ago

Last modified 6 years ago

#1583 new enhancement

XMPP should really support privacy rules

Reported by: DBDigital Owned by: deryni
Milestone: Component: XMPP
Version: 2.0.1 Keywords:
Cc: larstobi, sergiodj


I have noticed that if using the XMPP protocol and you cancel presence notification you can't renable it unless you unsubscribe then rerequest authorization, which requires your buddy to authorize you again. Shouldn't turning presence back on be allowed on your side rather than having to unsubscribe and rerequest authorization to the buddy? Something similar to what Yahoo has which allows you to cancel presence nofiticaiton and turn it back on at any time

Change History (11)

comment:1 Changed 12 years ago by deryni

  • pending changed from 0 to 1

If you cancel presence notification it is up to your buddy to re-request it from you if they want it back, it is not up to you to allow it again. 'Cancel presence notification' is *not* a way to be 'invisible' to someone on xmpp.

comment:2 Changed 12 years ago by DBDigital

  • pending changed from 1 to 0

Hmm well you are allowing them to see you rather then other way around so I didn't see a issue with it. But it is a different protocol and I am not as familar with XMPP as others. Ok, so I guess the best way is to wait until privacy (blocking) is fixed on Pidgin? Although privacy will also block messags (unless I am mistaken) and won't be a solution if one just wants to apear as offline while still being connected. Or is there a better way that I am not thinking of?

comment:3 Changed 12 years ago by hdh

We can just send a

<presence to='contact' type='subscribed'/>

via the XMPP Console and press Authorize on Buddy List, and the contact will see our presence again.

A context menu entry can do this for people who can't send stanzas (Windows users), and automate the Authorize click for the rest of us :) Preferably there should be a confirmation dialog, like requested in #1364 .

And I do think this is the XMPP way to do "permanently invisible" in Y!M speak. The gajim dialogs in these situation suggest so.

comment:4 Changed 12 years ago by deryni

  • Summary changed from Simple way to renable presence notification in XMPP protocol? to XMPP should really support privacy rules

DBDigital: XMPP privacy is much more flexible than most other protocols, so yes you would be able to block presence separately from messages and conversely block messages without blocking presence. But the better way is to stop doing this at all. =)

hdh: If you 'cancel presence notification' for a buddy your subscription status with that buddy with then be 'to' because you are subscribed to them but they are not subscribed to you. While in that subscription status servers are supposed to ignore outbound subscribed stanzas according to the XMPP RFC. So, no, sending a presence of that type shouldn't work to get you back to a status of 'both'.

comment:5 Changed 12 years ago by seanegan

  • Component changed from pidgin (gtk) to XMPP
  • Owner set to nwalp

comment:6 Changed 12 years ago by deryni

  • Owner changed from nwalp to deryni

I'm intending to look at doing this as a plugin, to see if it is feasibly doable that way and to get a sense of how it would fit in to a core privacy api at some later date. I'm also intending to look into implementing XEP-0186 in the core. We'll see how this goes.

comment:7 Changed 11 years ago by liviopl


comment:8 Changed 10 years ago by sergiodj


I would like to know if there has been any decision/improvement about this issue.

Thank you.

comment:9 Changed 10 years ago by deryni

No work, that I'm aware of, has been done to support privacy lists (because they are complicated and very few people actually support them in meaningful ways). pidgin does support the recent blocking extension however.

I started looking into supporting the invisible command but didn't get very far.

comment:10 Changed 10 years ago by DBDigital

Hmm looking at the blocking extension, that is something at least (and I had already seen that it does work...but of course is a total block handy very usefull at times but not at others. But invisible is even better since there are times when you may not wish to block all communication from a contact yet not let them see you as online at certain times.

comment:11 Changed 6 years ago by realitybytes

this is most easily accomplished using Privacy ListS, XEP-0016. And its usage is NOT-complex. XEP-0191 which is pidgin supported is woefully deficient.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.
All information, including names and email addresses, entered onto this website or sent to mailing lists affiliated with this website will be public. Do not post confidential information, especially passwords!