[ejabberd] privacy lists in 2.1.6

Yann Leboulanger asterix at lagaule.org
Thu Apr 28 17:28:36 MSD 2011

Le 25/04/2011 13:36, Badlop a écrit :
>>>> 2011/3/25 Yann Leboulanger<asterix at lagaule.org>:
>>>>> If I setup a rule that deny all that have subscription=none to send
>>>>> me iq,
>>>>> that also prevents ejabberd to reply to my disco#info request for
>>>>> example.
> A client sets a privacy list with one or more rules, and the server obeys them.
> The result is that some stanzas get blocked, as was explicitly
> specified in the rules.
> That was to be expected, right?
> If that was undesired, then the client should set a different set of rules.
>> So will there be something done to "fix" this issue?
> Yes, the client should only deny all stanzas of subscription=none
> if it has already allowed all stanzas of jid=myserver.com
> But surprinsgly, that rule will also allow stanzas of all users in myserver.com:
>> <domain>  (the domain itself matches, as does any user at domain or domain/resource)
> So, the protocol makes impossible to write a proper privacy list,
> and forces client developers to request server developers to be
> protocol incompliant.
> This leads us to propose that ejabberd should violate the user-defined rules.
> See an experimental patch in https://support.process-one.net/browse/EJAB-1441
> Can we safely commit that without having another guy, a month later,
> complain that ejabberd violates user privacy rules?

I fully agree with you, XEP-0016 is problematic. I've discussed that in 
standards ML, and it seems (still discussed) that iq stanza from user's 
server to user should be considered as incoming stanza, and thus should 
not be blocked.
It seems (I don't know erlang) that it's what your patch does.

If that could be written in XEP, that would be nice so all server 
implementation could have the same behaviour.


More information about the ejabberd mailing list