Luke Schierer wrote:
>he wants to make up for the deficiencies of the protocol on the client
>side, which could be done. i'd argue that it would, as you suggested,
>cause confusion, but not the confusions you suggest. we *could*
>implement a local-only concept of privacy, white lists, black lists, so
>on. we couldn't easily use that the way the protocols do, to control
>status information flow and such, but we *could* only create
>conversation windows that match the local-only concept of privacy,
>silently dropping other message attempts.
At least some of the things bleeter wants to do are done by other 3rd
Furthermore, at least some of the client only things are done by the
official linux client that yahoo provides. IIRC, it has a privacy dialog
much like ours, where the block users below option is implemented server
side, and all the rest are implemented client side. It's been a while
since I really looked into this though, I think that was the same time
Jesse Farmer was implementing it, and i was looking at packet dumps for
I no longer remember (did I ever know?) what all bleeter wanted to do.
I'm pretty sure at least some things are needed to make up for server
defincencies. Gaim should not be DoSable, for example, and we should
extend privacy concepts in Gaim, beyond those of the official clients if
needed, to ensure an nonDoSable nature of Gaim, dispite protocol suckage.