Always call purple_privacy_check() for incoming IMs

Paul Aurich paul at
Fri Jul 31 16:57:59 EDT 2009

And Mark Doliner spoke on 07/31/2009 12:15 PM, saying:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Mark Doliner<mark at> wrote:
>> How do people feel about the attached diff?  It changes serv_got_im()
>> to always call purple_privacy_check(), regardless of whether the PRPL
>> has implemented a set_permit_deny callback function.

Sounds good.

>> It effectively does client-side blocking of incoming IMs regardless of
>> the protocol.  This has no effect for AIM, where the server enforces
>> the permit/deny setting.  But it benefits ICQ, where the permit/deny
>> setting controls invisibility and our block list is actually a list of
>> people to whom you're invisible.  Other protocols this might affect:
>> MSN, Yahoo, Novell, Sametime.

Side question:

There also seems to be a slight difference between

when it comes to ICQ support for message blocking. Does ICQ (the protocol)
support an ignore list or not and, if so, libpurple does *not* support it,
correct? As I refer to these pages, I'd like to ensure they're accurate. :)

>> Based on Sulabh's email thread it seemed like people tended to be in
>> favor of this.
>> -Mark
> (with the diff this time)


More information about the Devel mailing list