Invisible presence, XEPs: 0018, 0186, 0126

Openfire Openfire Support
1

I’'ve taken a look at the protocol docs of Openfire and saw that none of these protocols were implemented.

They ARE a valuable asset used by most jabber users.

XEP 0018 has been rejected

XEP 0186 is a draft

XEP 0126 is accepted b yXMPP standards group.

It’‘s quite easy to implement 0126 and we’'d like to see it in future Openfire releases.

Keep up the good work, devs.

2

Hi,

XEP-0126 reads: “However, RFC 3921 also defines a privacy lists protocol (i.e., the ‘‘jabber:iq:privacy’’ namespace) that can be used to implement invisibility in an XMPP-compliant manner. This specification documents how to do just that.”

Openfire/Wildfire supports privacy lists, in my opinion there’‘s still a critical but with iq packets so it’'s not really usable but to deny presence-out it works fine. See http://wiki.igniterealtime.org/display/SPARK/Privacy+Lists for some examples.

LG

3

created JM-1012 and JM-1013 to track the documentation and iq issue

4

XEP-0126 is a hack that simply doesn’'t work for the general case (it only works when you assume that your client is the only one that accesses the account).

I strongly advise to implement XEP-0186, which is relatively easy to use and effective.

5

Hi,

I know that XEP-0126 is a poor one but XEP-0186 is not much better and still experimental. Also there presence may leak if one sends an iq:time packet to a full JID. As most users use only a few resources this is quite easy to do.

LG

6

it2000 wrote:

I know that XEP-0126 is a poor one but XEP-0186 is not much better and still experimental. Also there presence may leak if one sends an iq:time packet to a full JID.

The client has to take care about that by responding with an appropiate error message.

As most users use only a few resources this is quite easy to do.

Many people on xmpp I know are using multiple clients. Even when they’'re not used at the same time, problems can arise if those clients treat the block lists differently. Additionaly, “most users only do X” is a poor excuse for using a bad hack.

The worst case is that a client wipes the block list when going invisible or leaving that mode. That’'s not acceptable.

7

Hi,

as far as I can tell privacy lists should be handled by the server - so every client can rely on them.

As JM-1009 may be fixed with the next version it should work fine to use privacy lists, a negative priority and a random resource value to look offline for users.

LG