[ejabberd] Re: Negative priorities?
mange at freemail.hu
Sat Jan 22 14:17:55 MSK 2005
Mickael Remond <mickael.remond at erlang-fr.org> writes:
> The patch is better than the previous one. I am not sure however that
> the message are not send when you are online. The part of the code
> that you modified only seem to relate to the question of what to do
> with messages on presence change. I think that the place where
> messages are routed outside the contexte of presence changes does not
> handle the case of negative priority.
> I did not test your patch however, and will probably look further at
> it tomorrow.
I haven't looked at the part of the code that handles online messages,
but it seems to do the right thing - when I'm connected with negative
priority, I don't receive messages addressed to my bare JID. I do
receive them when resend_offline_messages is called.
> Another question however: the feature of not receiving the messages
> when I do not want to is usefull but I wonder how this relate to
> Jabber privacy features.
> I agree however that negative priority are in the specs, but I was
> wondering if privacy lists where not serving the same purpose as
> negative priority. I really do not know.
My understanding is that privacy lists are about routing messages to
/dev/null, without notification to either sender nor receiver. On the
other hand, messages received during negative priority are queued just
like offline messages.
Section 10.14 of RFC 3921 says that blocked messages and presences are
silently dropped, while iqs get a "service unavailable" error.
Section 184.108.40.206 defines treatment of messages to a bare JID.
More information about the ejabberd