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

231–240 of 259 posts

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#231

Post by jka »

tlynchpin wrote: post #184
e1ven wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signal is probably the best combination of easy-to-use/secure.

Signal doesn't support vcard which makes it a non-starter for many people [0][1]. [0]: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/issues/6520#issu... [1]: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Android/issues/6520#issu...

Interesting comment. How frequently do you think this one vcard-related issue you linked to is a problem for Signal users trying to share contact information with each other?

And could you give an example story illustrating how two users would run into this issue in practice?

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#232

Post by stevenicr »

fock wrote: post #209
jjrh wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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... Not sure what that even means. Worth reporting. > pictures are a link to the server, so I have to manually download them all. I think you need to install the image preview plugin. For gajim make sure it's a recent version. Dino-im https://dino.im/ is decent. poezio h…

Hey, thanks a lot, those clients look really quite great (and polished). Still, if you look at movim you imho experience the problem of the whole open XMPP-ecosystem. Somehow nobody cares for getting other people to support their features and in the end everything moves closed-source. At this point I think this really is a problem of years of standardizing new features and a lot of projects being sold under the label…

I;d like to see a table / chart showing the top 10 or 20 or so xmpp things - and what features are missing from each, along with notes about the language app 1 2 etc is written in, and an estimate in how long it would take coders to add the amount of missing features that others have..

then we could see an estimated total, like for $xx we could get most of these apps all on the same page of features running... if that is the major hurdle - a crowdsourced money or and time to get them all modernized may make the whole ecosystem 2.0 and worthy of use?

Surely it can't be that much that is needed - yet it seems that fixing just one or two is not having the same network effects of having them all speaking the 2.0 feature language.

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#233

Post by qot »

elvecinodeabajo wrote: post #222
richardwhiuk wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

XMPP and Matrix other people can host their servers on Google as well. Fundamentally, if you don't trust the decisions of the person you are talking with, you can't guarantee the privacy of your chats.

You're forgetting E2E encryption.

Delta.chat supports E2E with other Delta users and Autocrypt email clients, so the point stands.

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#234

Post by BlackLotus89 »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #120
BlackLotus89 wrote: post #105

E-Mail got extended as much as it could and COI doesn't change anything about it. If you want something like COI you can use deltachat https://github.com/deltachat/deltachat-android I couldn't find any specification about anything (encryption, contacts, group-chats,...) and the worst part is that it doesn't even solve the arbitrary problems it poses itself. privacy? Fat chance when you use E-mail. "big bad providers"…

Surely it will use TLS for encrypted transport.

That doesn't mean the connection between all servers is encrypted (smtp can be routed through multiple servers) nor does it mean that google or whatever server the data get stored on/routed through can't read your communication.

The whole thing just sets a low bar because it can't implement all the things other messengers already support (for instance not disclosing who you are talking to)

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#235

Post by Arnt »

gsich wrote: post #217
Arnt wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that if I want to search on a particular device, then that device should hold my backup storage? If so, then I disagree and have chosen to store my backups on a device that's behind two locked doors, hard to reach, well protected from being accidentally disturbed, and which doesn't run unrelated software.

One can never have enough backup storage. I fail to see where your problem is.

One can never?

Okay, suppose that I were to back up all of my mail to each client device; three at the moment, or four if you count my old phone, which is still running because I haven't gotten around to wiping it. Then I'd have five backup sites instead of one. But four of those are backed up to the fifth, so the size of the mail backup would be quintupled, the activity on the backup device would increase and with it the number of possible occasions for a failure, and the age of my oldest backup would be automatically decreased to compensate.

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#236

Post by kyberias »

This is interesting.

Wouldn't it be possible and transparent to the protocol to use PGP for end-to-end message encryption? If the recipient has a public key, the client can automatically use that and the recipient's client could automatically decrypt it.

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#239

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

jlkuester7 wrote: post #136
zinid wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obviously XSF contributed XMPP to the IETF after 10 years or so The first RFC was approved in 2004, after 5 years of XMPP development. The last RFC from XMPP WG is from 2015. > perhaps we'll end up contributing Matrix to IETF or W3C or whoever too if they'll have it So it's planned (TM). > I wonder if the XMPP community would spend less time constantly complaining about Matrix if they understood what it was :/ I wo…

Chill dude. No need to get all butthurt. If you don't like Matrix, don't use it. The rest of us will also have make the same choice for ourselves and time will tell whether Matrix has a unifying or dividing effect on chat. I, for one, have been playing with Matrix and other protocols for awhile and have been impressed not only by the Matrix team's vision, but also by their ability to deliver on it consistently (thoug…

Problem is, "team". It's not really decentralized at this moment, just software from the singular vendor. Of course, it moves faster than a really distributed protocol (in all senses of this word).

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#240

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

fock wrote: post #187
petre wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except XMPP already has several mature client and server implementations since it was around for longer.

So I want: - multiuser chat (persistent) - voice-calls (let's have them 1on1) - file-transfer - concurrent clients Which mature clients and servers should I choose from, implementing all this (basic) stuff?

All things you need will be covered by Xabber in second half of 2019, on ios, web, android.
Post reply on HN