User talk:Contagious Republic

Instant Messaging (IM) FAQ

Hi :-)
I reviewed your contribution to the "Instant Messaging (IM) FAQ", though wasn't sure about the "privacy" argument. I tracked down VWR-5613 but couldn't find any hint. Is there an official source stating that privacy is the reason behind not having this feature?
-- ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of, but people could obviously know you are not online if your IM are capped - and then know you are online when it's no longer capped a while later. The Lindens went a long way to preserve privacy, and forgot to think that some tech support/sales people WANT senders to know when things cap. A checkbox for "warn others when my IM caps" and/or "warn friends only when my IM caps" would work.—The preceding unsigned comment was added on 01:31, 10 December 2009 by Contagious Republic

Hm... I'd not fully agree. You can already retrieve that information with exactly the same repro you're outlining above. There are different scenarios:

• Somone who's offline receives an IM - The sender receives a notification that "Second Life: User not online - message will be stored and delivered later." The sender can therefor tell: "The recipient is obviously offline"
• Someone is online and receives an IM - Doesn't result in any kind of notification. The sender can tell: OK, that person is online.
• Someone is online but hides the online status, then receives an IM - Doesn't result in any kind of notification. It's the same as above -> The sender can tell that the recipient is online.

Telling from that, the message cap wouldn't disclose any more information than what's already available via the communication system. Furhtermore, there are easier ways to retrieve the online/offline status. llRequestAgentData with DATA_ONLINE, which always tells if an agent is online or not and, in case you share a group with that Resident in question, you can check in the member list for online status (and even see when the last login happened).

These are basically the reason why I believe that the privacy concern would not be the reason for not having such a feature.

-- ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected, and so is my contribution.