Dave Cridland | 1 Jul 09:59

Do Not Disturb, Directed Presence, etc

Pedro Melo wrote something on Jaiku that made me think. (Always  
dangerous).

His scenario was basically:

- Two (presumably) mutually subscribed resources, A and B.

- A is in Do Not Disturb. B isn't.

- A sends B a message.

- B responds with another message.

- A responds to B's reply with an auto-responder whining about being  
disturbed.

A couple of things strike me here:

1) A really shouldn't be auto-responding to a response.

2) This could be simplified if, when sending the initial message, A  
sent directed presence to B.

3) Auto-responders, and possibly automatic messages in general,  
really ought to be marked as such, to avoid an even worse case, where  
B promptly auto-responds back, and a messaging loop occurs.

As it happens, in this particular case, B was in fact a bot, and  
cheerfully posted the autoresponse to (at least) Jaiku. It wasn't  
Pedro's bot, incidentally, not that it really matters.
(Continue reading)

Pedro Melo | 1 Jul 10:57
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Do Not Disturb, Directed Presence, etc

Hi,

On Jul 1, 2008, at 8:59 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:

> Pedro Melo wrote something on Jaiku that made me think. (Always  
> dangerous).

I told you not to listen to me...

> His scenario was basically:
>
> - Two (presumably) mutually subscribed resources, A and B.
>
> - A is in Do Not Disturb. B isn't.
>
> - A sends B a message.
>
> - B responds with another message.
>
> - A responds to B's reply with an auto-responder whining about  
> being disturbed.
>
> A couple of things strike me here:
>
> 1) A really shouldn't be auto-responding to a response.
>
> 2) This could be simplified if, when sending the initial message, A  
> sent directed presence to B.

I was wondering if there is a potential use for the forgotten  
(Continue reading)

Picon

Re: [Standards] Do Not Disturb, Directed Presence, etc

Hello

On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 09:57:56AM +0100, Pedro Melo wrote:
> I was wondering if there is a potential use for the forgotten <thread> but 
> I can't make that case yet.

Maybe send the auto-response only once during the thread?

> But I would like to see automatic messages marked somehow anyway, maybe a 
> <x xmlns="urn:xmpp:automatic-message' />. This would allow me to influence 
> the display of such messages (and other things like don't store them in the 
> archive).

Or not send auto-responses at all. If someone can't read in my status
I'm DND, will he be able to read it from a message? It is only duplicate
information. If someone feels he needs it repeated in the chat window,
let his (not remote) client do that.

> I often understand DND as a state where I can interrupt other to ask some 
> stuff for the task that I'm doing. And I'm willing to accept back 
> responses, so it should be accompanied by a direct presence perhaps.

I take DND as „No useless talking like wanna go for a drink, but I'm
here, if it is really important (like your house is on fire), it is
ok)“.

Have a nice day

--

-- 
A nuclear war can ruin your whole day.
(Continue reading)

Remko Tronçon | 1 Jul 11:47
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Do Not Disturb, Directed Presence, etc

> - A responds to B's reply with an auto-responder whining about being
> disturbed.

I have yet to discover another use of auto-responders except annoying
people. First of all, I can see when clicking someone's roster item to
send him a message that he/she is not online. Secondly, my IM client's
chat dialog tells me "Your contact is away: Out eating". If I still
send him a message, despite all this, i don't really want a reply
stating the over-obvious "I'm currently away, out eating" (which is
especially annoying if the other side decides to wait 2 seconds
because of lag, and his chat dialog is already closed). I say away
with all auto-responders.

cheers,
Remko
_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe <at> jabber.org
_______________________________________________

Kevin Smith | 1 Jul 11:57
Picon

Re: Do Not Disturb, Directed Presence, etc

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Remko Tronçon <remko <at> el-tramo.be> wrote:
>> - A responds to B's reply with an auto-responder whining about being
>> disturbed.
>
> I have yet to discover another use of auto-responders except annoying
> ...

I agree with pretty much all of Remko's post.

/K
_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe <at> jabber.org
_______________________________________________

Pedro Melo | 1 Jul 12:01
Picon

Re: [Standards] Do Not Disturb, Directed Presence, etc

Hi,

(reposted to dev because I'm an idiot).

On Jul 1, 2008, at 8:59 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:

Pedro Melo wrote something on Jaiku that made me think. (Always dangerous).

I told you not to listen to me...


His scenario was basically:

- Two (presumably) mutually subscribed resources, A and B.

- A is in Do Not Disturb. B isn't.

- A sends B a message.

- B responds with another message.

- A responds to B's reply with an auto-responder whining about being disturbed.

A couple of things strike me here:

1) A really shouldn't be auto-responding to a response.

2) This could be simplified if, when sending the initial message, A sent directed presence to B.

I was wondering if there is a potential use for the forgotten <thread> but I can't make that case yet.

Maybe directed presence in the context of a thread.

Just throwing stuff in the air...


3) Auto-responders, and possibly automatic messages in general, really ought to be marked as such, to avoid an even worse case, where B promptly auto-responds back, and a messaging loop occurs.

As it happens, in this particular case, B was in fact a bot, and cheerfully posted the autoresponse to (at least) Jaiku. It wasn't Pedro's bot, incidentally, not that it really matters.

I was curious as to what developers thought about the situation, and whether any clients do in fact send directed presence to roster people when in states such as dnd.

I think client authors should look at the disco reply of each JID. If I announce that I'm a

<identity category="client" type="bot" />

you really shouldn't be sending me auto-replies.

I think that if client authors respect this, you won't need anything else.

But I would like to see automatic messages marked somehow anyway, maybe a <x xmlns="urn:xmpp:automatic-message' />. This would allow me to influence the display of such messages (and other things like don't store them in the archive).


Finally, if dnd really does mean Do NOT Disturb At All Ever, then I'm in raised-eyebrow territory, because I thought it meant Do Not Disturb Unless Important - since if you really don't want to be disturbed, then there's that "unavailable" presence type. But what's important is tricky - so perhaps it's an application of XEP-0155, and we negotiate that between clients.

Offline is different. Offline is "not available". DND is "available if you have agreed with me when its ok to interrupt me". It's probably the state with most social baggage we have, because it really depends on a lot of cultural baggage specific to each person.

I often understand DND as a state where I can interrupt other to ask some stuff for the task that I'm doing. And I'm willing to accept back responses, so it should be accompanied by a direct presence perhaps.

But really, this is a place where clients can be better: I can see a client that sends to offline storage the messages that where sent while on DND and when you change back to available you get "Welcome back, dave. You had 4 contacts trying to reach you while you where out. Care to see a summary of their messages?".

Also, chat windows opened to dnd contacts should have a big RED sign saying "Are you felling lucky, punk?".

Best regards,
-- 
Pedro Melo
Use XMPP!


Hi,

On Jul 1, 2008, at 8:59 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:

Pedro Melo wrote something on Jaiku that made me think. (Always dangerous).

I told you not to listen to me...


His scenario was basically:

- Two (presumably) mutually subscribed resources, A and B.

- A is in Do Not Disturb. B isn't.

- A sends B a message.

- B responds with another message.

- A responds to B's reply with an auto-responder whining about being disturbed.

A couple of things strike me here:

1) A really shouldn't be auto-responding to a response.

2) This could be simplified if, when sending the initial message, A sent directed presence to B.

I was wondering if there is a potential use for the forgotten <thread> but I can't make that case yet.

Maybe directed presence in the context of a thread.

Just throwing stuff in the air...


3) Auto-responders, and possibly automatic messages in general, really ought to be marked as such, to avoid an even worse case, where B promptly auto-responds back, and a messaging loop occurs.

As it happens, in this particular case, B was in fact a bot, and cheerfully posted the autoresponse to (at least) Jaiku. It wasn't Pedro's bot, incidentally, not that it really matters.

I was curious as to what developers thought about the situation, and whether any clients do in fact send directed presence to roster people when in states such as dnd.

I think client authors should look at the disco reply of each JID. If I announce that I'm a

<identity category="client" type="bot" />

you really shouldn't be sending me auto-replies.

I think that if client authors respect this, you won't need anything else.

But I would like to see automatic messages marked somehow anyway, maybe a <x xmlns="urn:xmpp:automatic-message' />. This would allow me to influence the display of such messages (and other things like don't store them in the archive).


Finally, if dnd really does mean Do NOT Disturb At All Ever, then I'm in raised-eyebrow territory, because I thought it meant Do Not Disturb Unless Important - since if you really don't want to be disturbed, then there's that "unavailable" presence type. But what's important is tricky - so perhaps it's an application of XEP-0155, and we negotiate that between clients.

Offline is different. Offline is "not available". DND is "available if you have agreed with me when its ok to interrupt me". It's probably the state with most social baggage we have, because it really depends on a lot of cultural baggage specific to each person.

I often understand DND as a state where I can interrupt other to ask some stuff for the task that I'm doing. And I'm willing to accept back responses, so it should be accompanied by a direct presence perhaps.

But really, this is a place where clients can be better: I can see a client that sends to offline storage the messages that where sent while on DND and when you change back to available you get "Welcome back, dave. You had 4 contacts trying to reach you while you where out. Care to see a summary of their messages?".

Also, chat windows opened to dnd contacts should have a big RED sign saying "Are you felling lucky, punk?".

Best regards,
-- 
Pedro Melo
Use XMPP!






-- 

HIId: Pedro Melo

SMTP: melo <at> co.sapo.pt

XMPP: pedro.melo <at> sapo.pt



_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe <at> jabber.org
_______________________________________________
Pedro Melo | 1 Jul 12:31
Picon

Re: Do Not Disturb, Directed Presence, etc


On Jul 1, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Remko Tronçon <remko <at> el-tramo.be>  
> wrote:
>>> - A responds to B's reply with an auto-responder whining about being
>>> disturbed.
>>
>> I have yet to discover another use of auto-responders except annoying
>> ...
>
> I agree with pretty much all of Remko's post.

I do too... The question is what should bot authors do to prevent  
problems, and given that some client authors will say "our clients  
want this", what should the guidelines be to said authors, to prevent  
message loops.

Do you need a email-like Precedence header (like tagging messages as  
Dave suggested) or checking <identity> to see if we are talking to  
something that claims to be human is enough?

Just because you, remko, and me don't like auto-replies, doesn't make  
them go away, that's my fear.

Best regards,
--

-- 
HIId: Pedro Melo
SMTP: melo <at> co.sapo.pt
XMPP: pedro.melo <at> sapo.pt

_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe <at> jabber.org
_______________________________________________

Kevin Smith | 1 Jul 12:38
Picon

Re: Do Not Disturb, Directed Presence, etc

On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Pedro Melo <melo <at> co.sapo.pt> wrote:
> Just because you, remko, and me don't like auto-replies, doesn't make
> them go away, that's my fear.

I propose the following text for -bis, then:
"""
Autoreplies are bad. If you want to use one, go away.
"""
Would that solve the problem? :D

As to the proposed problem with message loops, have we ever seen this?
It sounds like clients with autoreplies will end up getting bug
reports and having to fix this :)

/K
_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe <at> jabber.org
_______________________________________________

Dave Cridland | 1 Jul 12:55

Re: Do Not Disturb, Directed Presence, etc

On Tue Jul  1 11:38:33 2008, Kevin Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Pedro Melo <melo <at> co.sapo.pt> wrote:
> > Just because you, remko, and me don't like auto-replies, doesn't  
> make
> > them go away, that's my fear.
> 
> I propose the following text for -bis, then:
> """
> Autoreplies are bad. If you want to use one, go away.
> """
> Would that solve the problem? :D
> 
> 
Actually, RFC 3921 itself has the right gunk for marking the  
auto-responders, we just need to remind people that this gunk exists,  
and how to use it. This is Best Practise territory, not new protocol.  
And yes, this Best Practise document could also say "Don't send  
spurious auto-responses to a bot, silly."

> As to the proposed problem with message loops, have we ever seen  
> this?
> It sounds like clients with autoreplies will end up getting bug
> reports and having to fix this :)

Well, yes, I've not seen it, nor heard of it happening, but given the  
steady increase in services run over XMPP with an IM-like interface,  
I suspect that we could end up seeing them more. Certainly the  
accidental posting of auto-responders seems likely, and while not as  
scary as a messaging loop, it's certainly worth avoiding.

Dave.
--

-- 
Dave Cridland - mailto:dave <at> cridland.net - xmpp:dwd <at> dave.cridland.net
  - acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
  - http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe <at> jabber.org
_______________________________________________

Jonathan Dickinson | 1 Jul 13:07

Re: Do Not Disturb, Directed Presence, etc

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jdev-bounces <at> jabber.org [mailto:jdev-bounces <at> jabber.org] On
> Behalf Of Kevin Smith
> Sent: 01 July 2008 12:39 PM
> To: Jabber/XMPP software development list
> Subject: Re: [jdev] Do Not Disturb, Directed Presence, etc
>
> As to the proposed problem with message loops, have we ever seen this?
> It sounds like clients with autoreplies will end up getting bug
> reports and having to fix this :)

One of My MSN contacts uses trillian (by the looks of it) and it auto-responds, but only does so +/- three
times. So you wouldn't get a message loop in that case. But the whole situation is quite humorous:

-----------------------------------------
Juliet <at> server.org (do not disturb) [_][x]
-----------------------------------------
Romeo (do not disturb): Please go away.
Romeo (do not disturb): Please go away.
Romeo (do not disturb): Please go away.
...

My ASCII art sucks but I am sure you get the irony of the situation...

Maybe a more appropriate option would be to have only a toaster pop up in the DND mode with a 'do not disturb'
link that will autorespond and a 'ignore' option that does nothing, instead of a new chat window +
autorespond/no chat window + autorespond.

>
> /K
> _______________________________________________
> JDev mailing list
> FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
> Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
> Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
> Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe <at> jabber.org
> _______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe <at> jabber.org
_______________________________________________


Gmane