XSF Communications Team - 2024-08-04

Final call for reviews: https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/1420/files#diff-642e7e5dae0277a7a6a842fae614fc29ff99596cf24fabd03213706e121fe444

Lgtm

http://soatok.blog/2024/08/04/against-xmppomemo/

haters gonna hate 🤦

They have valid points right?

Strong opinions and no real argument against OMEMO v0.8

> Strong opinions and no real argument against OMEMO v0.8 agree ↺

But yes, the ecosystem is stuck on 0.3 and that is not great

the fact that xsf hasnt helped in that transition is a problem imo for years now

same with improving omemo core

the transition depends entirely on the clients implementation

C3 is comming

Monal users' can …… well it's Apple so what's the point of encryption in the first place ……

lets agree to disagree i guess

> They have valid points right? Sort of. Their main point is a UX point so not protocol related. The criticism of 0.3 is valid but doesn't affect almost any actual use of 0.3 and is about authenticity not about encryption. The question of why 0.7 made a seemingly random change without a good changelog entry is fine, but they admit that the change isn't a security problem and so this is a process issue at most. ↺

Ultimately the main thing is to carefully read their intro and conclusion. They don't feel that Conversations is a good alternative to Signal for the threat model they consider Signal good for. They're honestly probably right about that (assuming signal isn't just faking or compromised by the app stores) and I'm not sure it ever will be because it targets a different use case and a different threat model

They would like the protocol to enforce e2ee, which is IMHO a bad idea.

Hello everyone!

you guys, I just sent the PR for the ES translation

If everything went as planned, it should be https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/1423

I'm not felling pretty well at the moment, so I may not be immediately avaliable for the day

🤮

I would really appreciate if any of you guys can confirm the PR is Ok and that I didn't send it to the moon or God knows where

https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/1423 nemmig wants to merge 4 commits into xsf:newsletter-july24 from nemmig:newsletter-julio24

Thank you!! 😊

> http://soatok.blog/2024/08/04/against-xmppomemo/ He has also been banging really hard against Matrix: https://mastodon.sdf.org/@soatok@furry.engineer/112879831173351662 ↺

Seem to be pretty "pro" Signal: https://soatok.blog/2024/07/31/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-signal-competitor/

Also: https://furry.engineer/@soatok/112888486420414180

gnemmi: take care

Is this something we should take oe not. I also dont want I simply ignore cririsim or counter voices

if it can spurr some activity into upgrading clients to OMEMO v0.8 that would be a net positive

it probably needs some editorial note if you add it to the newsletter

Hi :)

Thanks edhelas, can you kindly elaborate and post again what you saw with XSF "Atom" feed?

I've also put the message on the XSF main chatroom, but it seems that the "Atom" link on the blog is actually not an atom one but RSS

Ah, I think that is a common issue with Hugo

ok thx

https://upload.movim.eu/files/9d94237298995552fa13436420195fbca436dce7/sopMB8UTjmo4/image.png

To actually publish it on Pubsub it need to be a valid Atom 1.0

Are there "converters"

?

I have one personnal one, but its always better if the source is fixed :)

RSS is a really messy standard

😬

is it hugo not not?

for Hugo there are some guides how to make it generate proper Atom I think

> RSS is a really messy standard RSS2 is not a standard at all, it barely has a spec. Though if a converter is needed granary.io is very good ↺

We had one with Atom for xmpp.org, but it created problems, and then we went back to the original implementation which provides rss, I think. But I will have a look again :)