Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

COI – Chat Over IMAP

coi-dev.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 259 posts

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#191

Post by acct1771 »

feanaro wrote: post #182
alrs wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried Matrix last month. It's neat, but slow and a little buggy. Recommending it to anyone other than a Matrix developer right now seems a bit of a stretch.

To counterbalance this a bit, I'm using it heavily with a large group of (partially non-technical) friends and friends-of-friends, along with participating in public rooms over federation and it's been pretty smooth. Things were certainly rougher a year ago but they have improved a great deal and are continuing to improve at a good pace.

An amazing pace lately. The pace is what makes me more sure - just slow enough I think it's done right.

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#192

Post by rakoo »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #173
Tharkun wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is very difficult to build a decent email client with IMAP Why do you say that? I've implemented a couple of embedded IMAP clients over the years and I always found it pretty OK to work with?

Once you try to integrate with different systems, you'll find one of the major difficulties of IMAP: nobody really cares. Every player is different. Even gmail has its own issues, like creating "folders" for each tag and duplicates the same message to each folder, so your little simple client now has custom de-duplication logic. Working with IMAP at a large company was my first "meh, how hard could it be" hubris mome…

> Also, no servers have to return your commands in order, and they don't have ids. So you'll code shit like "if the response looks like this, it must've matched up with this one command."

I'm sure you know, but in case someone reads it and doesn't know it this is perfectly as intended: IMAP isn't a request-response protocol, it's more of a pub/sub protocol.

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#193

Post by noisy_boy »

rafbuff wrote: post #103
Moru wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://xkcd.com/927/

https://xkcd.com/1810/ even better. But hey, we are using IMAP and Mail which is already in the picture.

One more: communicate over draft messages in shared email account[0].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petraeus_scandal

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#194

Post by fock »

jjrh wrote: post #190
fock wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1 and arguably the concurrent clients + multiuser thing is something which XMPP did never get around really. There are at least a dozen or so XEPs which noone is implementing (except for Conversations) which make basic functionality a mess. You download any client and get basic 1on1-chat with no missed messages when both parties are online. Everything else depends on, .... whatever. Even major providers needed some…

What do you mean? Unless you're using a very old client like pidgin, this stuff shouldn't be a problem.

well, I'm open to client suggestions (and to public servers, where I can try them out too). I was told by Google (tm) that gajim should be one of the most feature-complete clients on the desktop. tried it with conversations on the phone. group messages go into some archive-window (instead of showing up in the chat window like in every over program), sometimes the archive misses them... pictures are a link to the server, so I have to manually download them all. encryption with multiple clients is a mess (even more so than matrix). av is completely missing. of course this are all relatively minor things from a technical standpoint but they add up and together with the thing that a large amount also depends on the server this makes for a very bad user experience (basically it currently means: run your own server and use conversations)...

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#195

Post by LinuxBender »

cvwright wrote: post #166
ppjet6 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeremie Miller, 1999: > "Jabber is a new project I recently started to create a complete open-source platform for Instant Messaging with transparent communication to other IM systems(ICQ, AIM, etc). Matthew Hodgson, 2019: > I think they missed the the bit where Matrix is called Matrix because it bridges (matrixes) the existing networks (Slack, IRC, Telegram, Discord, XMPP, etc) in, rather than needing to convince eve…

If everyone shared your (lack of) optimism, then we'd still be stuck with: * Wonky unwieldy hypertext systems instead of the WWW * The Nomad instead of the iPod * The Blackberry instead of the iPhone * GNU Hurd instead of Linux * Geocities instead of Facebook (-- OK maybe that one's a wash :-) The point is, sometimes it's worth trying again until you can make it work.

I would gladly trade in Facebook for Geocities (now neocities.org, it's open source replacement)

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#196

Post by vbezhenar »

SamWhited wrote: post #72
alrs wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried Matrix last month. It's neat, but slow and a little buggy. Recommending it to anyone other than a Matrix developer right now seems a bit of a stretch.

Not to mention that it's just re-solving all the same problems other messaging protocols (XMPP, IRC, etc.) spent time solving 10+ years ago. I always feel that the Matrix organization is a bit disingenuous. Not only are they not developed by any recognized standards body (meaning they have no long-term sustainable funding model), but if they really just wanted to connect all the other chat protocols and make sure eve…

Jabber is dead. Apparently it was either bad enough or complex enough to prevent creating good clients and servers. Matrix is another chance to kill Whatsapp and Telegram and replace proprietary software used by billions with free software. I'm not sure if it'll be successful, I think that implementations are not there yet and momentum might be lost when they will be there. But Jabber won't recover and we should try, because giving up is not acceptable.

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#198

Post by ronsor »

0xffff2 wrote: post #137
youdontknowtho wrote: post #80

IMAP is basically just a way for attackers to test credentials. You should be very very careful about enabling IMAP. Hopefully you (or your provider) are watching the logs and can respond to abnormal login attempts.

Huh? What should we be using instead? Surely not POP.

obviously we should all use webmail and leave our email locked away to one provider

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#199

Post by tiglionabbit »

Arathorn wrote: post #29

> With XMPP and Matrix.org -based services you would still need to convince everyone to join your new network. Easy in theory, very complex in practice! I think they missed the the bit where Matrix is called Matrix because it bridges (matrixes) the existing networks (Slack, IRC, Telegram, Discord, XMPP, etc) in, rather than needing to convince everyone to join. But no matter, we'll just provide a COI bridge if this t…

So you mean to say that I can use matrix.org to talk to someone on Telegram? How? I just went to riot.im and I don't get it.
Post reply on HN