Re: LAST CALL: XEP-0377 (Spam Reporting)

Goffi <[email protected]> Tue, 13 Jan 2026 15:27:35 +0100

Newsgroups	gmane.network.jabber.standards-jig
Message-ID	<4705324.LvFx2qVVIh@tazar3>

Hi,

Sorry with end-of year and all, I haven't had time to process this earlier.Le 
vendredi 12 décembre 2025, 13:48:53 heure normale d’Europe centrale Daniel 
Gultsch a écrit :

> 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol
> stack or to clarify an existing protocol?

yes


> 2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction
> and requirements?

yes
 
> 3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not,
> why not?

I plan to implement it.
 
> 4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification?

Not really security related, but I'm wondering if it should not be possible to 
have several reasons, and so use an element instead of an attribute. A message 
could be flagged as SPAM, PORN, and CSAM for instance (and we can imagine that 
illegal material are treated with higher priority, so it's important to be 
able to flag extensively).

I'm also worried that the "Servers MAY anonymize any submission to third-
party" if there is no mechanism to indicate if it's anonymized or not. IMHO, 
it should either be a "MUST" or there should be a mechanism to indicate if 
it's anonymized or not. I don't feel comfortable to let my user check a box to 
report to original server if I can't be sure that it's anonymized.

> 5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written?

Mostly. I don't really get this sentence in §5:
```
Servers MUST NOT process a report if the report that do not explicitly include 
the corresponding processing option. 
```

Thanks for the work on this specification.

Best,
Goffi

_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 488 B)