[JDEV] Invisibility and transports

[David Waite]

Jim Seymour wrote:

>Eh?  Far be it from me to question the wisdom of people who've been
>working on Jabber much longer than I, and presumably understand its
>logic and where y'all are going with it much better than I, but this
>quite frankly doesn't make sense to me.  I would *think* the purpose of
>the transports is to "protocol convert" between Jabber and protocol X.
>ISTM that would include such things as "invisible."  Forcing each and
>every client to individually deal with such things on a
>protocol-by-protocol basis does not make sense to me.
>
The issue, summarized, is that transports have no 'rights' over a user 
or their account; every part of a transport exists to a Jabber user as 
other users. This includes all of the remote users being represented by 
the transport, and the transport proxy user.

Once inter-server communication comes into play, the local server cannot 
determine if this is a transport either. To everyone these all look like 
jabber users on some remote server.

Gabber (and apparently some other client) recognise the transport proxy 
user by the format of the identifier in the roster (e.g. 
msn.jabber.org/registered). There is no required format/structure of 
identifier or name that can really be used to distinguish them.

-David Waite