XSF Discussion - 2018-06-30

See https://delta.chat for IM over email

Hey

Is there a way to delete messages in mam?

j.r: no standardized way

that's bad

What means not standardized?

That there is no standard way of doing it. Some servers or providers might have their own protocol

Oh ok

labdsf: "Independent: You are not dependent on any external service or server - Delta Chat only uses your mail server." Can I laugh

pep.: dunno what you laugh at, it basically means they don't run any infrastructure

Well yeah they use email. I guess they only provide the client, the server being gmail for most people, I don't see how that's not being dependent

(also, it is really sucky when you don’t have DeltaChat)

(a friend of mine tested it briefly)

jonasw: in what way? (I could guess, but just curious)

“23:15:59 SamWhited> Client UIs are primarily designed for short form messages that are meant to be read right away.”, there are quite a few clients which have a better UI for that, try Movim or Libervia.

"primarily" was the keyword there.

It depends on the client.

IM clients do IM primarily, other clients do other things primarily.

And XMPP clients are primarily IM clients.

Is there any use to this information?

I'm not sure what you mean; I was just asked a question so I answered it.

I wouldn't be surpried if non-IM XMPP clients vastly outnumbered IM XMPP clients, but we just can't see them.

Totally

Probably not in such a way that moving the newsletter to them would be helpful though; I doubt a million and one IoT devices or whatever want to read the newsletter.

Once they become self aware they might

BBL, taking my laser printer into installing conversations.

Ge0rG, whut?

flow: 0184 kind of breaks with multi device cases, but still I'd consider it a bad idea to ack on MAM storage. Instead, we should fix xmpp to reflect an error if the message didn't reach the recipient's MAM

You could add another level of ack of course, which is less than "delivered to user's device", but I don't see any value in it for IM

Ge0rG, why do you think that it is a bad idea?

flow: abusing 0184? because "stored in MAM" is less of a delivery guarantee than "received by user's device"

flow: think of "the user lost their device last week, and won't ever login again, but MAM is still running"

I agree with Ge0rG that using 0184 is a bad hack, as it's intended for end-to-end receipts. 0198 gives you single hop receipts already.

Does 184 say something about how to make sense of it in a multi-device environment?

No, it's more like "some device received it"

I think that in combo with MAM, it's a good approximation of "at least one device received it, and the others are going to eventually sync up"

Storing delivery receipts in mam for each message would no no good.

Hacks to store "empty" messages to act as read receipts are no good either.

Andrew Nenakhov: what's the problem with storing receipts in MAM?