After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 608763 - Cannot block contacts.
Cannot block contacts.
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 551911
Product: empathy
Classification: Core
Component: Contact List
Other Linux
: Normal major
: ---
Assigned To: empathy-maint
Depends on:
Reported: 2010-02-02 03:51 UTC by Doug Penner
Modified: 2010-02-02 21:55 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---

Description Doug Penner 2010-02-02 03:51:46 UTC
There does not appear to be any way to block a contact. This is a serious missing feature due to privacy issues and the ability to block spammers and unwanted people from communicating.

Currently, the only way around this is to launch pidgin (or some other IM app), block the contact, then launch empathy again. This is a HORRIBLE workaround.
Comment 1 Frederic Peters 2010-02-02 09:07:37 UTC
Thanks for your report, this feature has already been requested in bug 551911.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 551911 ***
Comment 2 Doug Penner 2010-02-02 18:52:55 UTC
This is not the same but. But 551991 is to automatically block anyone not on the buddy list. This request is to SPECIFICALLY block a person that may already be on the buddy list. It is very useful for temporary blocks. It also prevents the person from repeatedly sending "add requests".

If you simply remove the person from the contact list, the person can then re-add you and you will keep getting accept requests.

Please remove the duplicate tag.
Comment 3 Frederic Peters 2010-02-02 19:05:40 UTC
Sorry my daily usage of IM doesn't match yours, but what's the purpose of a temporary block? The reason you give is to avoid getting accept requests for the same account, but as I understand this particular possibility it would, I think, be better handled by a third button, you have "Reject" and "Accept", and you'd want a new "Reject permanently".

Or am I missing something?
Comment 4 Doug Penner 2010-02-02 21:20:47 UTC
Here's a scenerio:

Removing the person from my contact list does not remove me from theirs. Nor does it prevent them from viewing my status (only, offline, etc). Before I accept them the first time, they are unable to view such information, but after accepting them (even if I later remove them), that permission level is not removed.

Even if they cannot send messages to me, this is still a privacy issue since they are able to receive more information than they could before my temporary acceptance.

I don't see the big issue with implementing this, it is a standard feature in every IM client I have ever used (MicrosoftMSN, Trillian, Gaim, Adium, Pidgin, etc).
Comment 5 Frederic Peters 2010-02-02 21:45:48 UTC
There is no big issue implementing this (apart the fact that somebody needs to do it), but there is an issue implementing features for the sole reason other programs have them, without thinking about a rationale for them.

I understand the issue in your latest comment would be addressed if the client didn't leak information once the contact has been removed, and I wonder how the "leaking behaviour" is useful in the other clients.
Comment 6 Doug Penner 2010-02-02 21:55:09 UTC
What about simply implementing it so when you remove someone it gives you the option to:
A) Simply remove the user (they can still see you)
B) De-authorize the user (they can attempt to re-add you)
C) Permanently de-authorize the user (basically, they are blocked)

Though it would still be nice to be able to temporarily block someone. I know some people that I usually talk to, but every so often just won't stop talking, so blocking them for a day or so is a very nice ability to have.