[JDEV] Invisibility and transports

[Alexandre N. Safiullin]

>>>>> "MW" == Matthias Wimmer <m at tthias.net> writes:

 MW> Hi Thomas!
 MW> Thomas Muldowney wrote:

 >> As far as I know (and after conferring with Julian) all the transports
 >> currently interpret it as offline.  So the users session to the remote
 >> network is ended.  If the remote networks have hte ability, they could
 >> support it better in the future, but I don't think they do yet.
 >> 
 MW> AFAIK icqv7-transport supports invisibility. 

 Yes, ICQv7-t supports invisibility, but with help of clients which
 should send presence type=invsible also to the transport. Gabber
 and JAJC are only the such clients.

 MW> The problem with it is, that the Jabber server doesn't send the
 MW> <presence type='invisible'/> packet to the transports. Invisibility
 MW> and transports only work if the Jabber client sends an addresses
 MW> invisible <presence/> to a transport.

 MW> The only clients that support this at the moment are JAJC and
 MW> Gabber. I don't know how they check which contact is a transport and
 MW> if this can be faked by a user (and therefore the user would get the
 MW> invisible presence that it shouldn't get). In my opinion the best way
 MW> would be if the server sends invisible presences to its
 MW> transports. This should be more secure then a Jabber client deciding
 MW> to whilch users (that are transports) invisible presence has to be
 MW> sent.

 I suggested this solution to jer, but he said 'server-side implied logic suxx'
 (I paraphrase ;) ).


-- 
 Regards, Alex_