User talk:Contagious Republic
I reviewed your contribution to the "Instant Messaging (IM) FAQ", though wasn't sure about the "privacy" argument. I tracked down 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)
- TY! :-) I turned it into a note box and moved it up to the chapter where the message cap is described. Also reworded it a little since – although I fully agree that it's annoying – I think that the would be a better venue to mention it, while the KB article might merely document the current state.
- Also I want to mention that, despite all the editing and comments, the addition is highly appreciated and made the article more valuable. Thanks for that! =)
- -- (talk|contribs) 02:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)