I’ve been unable to get the plugin to drop or reject MUC private messages. It works fine for dropping presence or “regular” private messages. I haven’t tried restarting the OF server yet, would that be likely to resolve the issue?
MUC’s private messages are still MUCs messages. They are different than regular one to one chats, so probably that’s why you are not able to block them.
Thanks for your reply wroot. It’s very possible that I’m misinterpreting the documentation, but it looks like it should be possible to do this. From the doc page:
Packet Type
This specifies what type of packets you want to disable your choices are :
Message - Regular old message.
Presence - Presence Info.
IQ - Used to transfer most other data.
MUC - Multi User Chat, chat rooms.
MUC Private Message - A private message within a chat room
Any - All of the above
I think the highlited line should cover my scenario, but even if I create a rule to drop any packet, I can still initiate a direct 1 to 1 chat from within a MUC (and it doesn’t block MUC packets either.) Still scratching my head here…
Are you sure you have changed the Action of your rule to Drop? Or maybe From or To selections are wrong. It works for me. I can block either only MUC private messages or the whole MUC.
Thanks again, that’s very encouraging! I’m pretty sure I’ve got it set up correctly, and have gone through a few dozen variations on the filters and groups. I’m going to reinstalling the plugin next, followed by bouncing the server, then try to install OF on a fresh VM if the reboot doesn’t correct it.
One more question on your setup wroot - are you able to filter messages between users assigned to the same group, or are you using different criteria in the from/to fields?
Ah, that works for me also, but I don’t want to drop all MUC or private MUC messages. It looks like the snag may be related to the group assignments in my case.
The reinstallation of the plugin and a reboot of the server had no effect. I’ve installed OF on another server and pointed it to another database, and the behavior is identical. I’m beginning to think I’m out of options apart from digging into the code.