Self-hosting a Matrix server for 5 years
31–40 of 159 posts
Re: Self-hosting a Matrix server for 5 years
#32>this also creates a situation where anything said across federation cannot be unsaid, which is an ironic situation for a protocol/system that often comes up when talking about privacy. How is it ironic? No protocol in the world can force anyone to delete anything from their own device. Chat apps that implement this function are either proprietary (so you cannot control what they can do) or, if OSS, do it on a pinky-…
A protocol can mandate forced deletion. A particular client implementation may ignore it, or some users may circumvent it, so it would be a weaker kind of feature, but still a feature. And depending on circumstances it can be quite useful.
Re: Self-hosting a Matrix server for 5 years
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
A protocol can mandate forced deletion. A particular client implementation may ignore it, or some users may circumvent it, so it would be a weaker kind of feature, but still a feature. And depending on circumstances it can be quite useful.
A protocol can only support, never mandate. If I send you "DELETE MSG #4829" and you do nothing and reply with "200 OK; DELETE MSG #4829", nobody observing the protocol's messages will ever know what happened. Sure, an omniscent being could say "but he internally broke protocol, he didn't delete the message!", but by definition if something cannot be verified inside the protocol, it is outside of protocol.
Re: Self-hosting a Matrix server for 5 years
#34The fact that I cannot delete attachments that users delete is certainly my biggest irritation, 50GBs of stuff I am not sure if I can or cannot delete, but considering the size, I am just gonna bite the bullet, couple terabytes should not be a problem in 25 years. But this is def something I would love to see addressed sooner rather than later. It must be a pain even for the matrix.org server team.
After moving to a better server I do not have issues with slow notification unless the phone is sleeping for longer period of time which is an android optimization (I'd assume). It is more reliable than teams at this point. One of my friends had issues but removing 15 old devices fixed the issue.
As for element-x, I did call out "the another rewrite" issue especially with android and I do think it makes things worse. I still do not know how am I supposed to fix calling and video between old and new clients. For now I don't bother with new clients and everyone is using old ones, but it starts to become an issue as classic clients are in maintenance only mode
Re: Self-hosting a Matrix server for 5 years
#35Re: Self-hosting a Matrix server for 5 years
#36Looked at current tui offerings now some years later, situation seems to be unchanged, the only client that ran back then was gomuks, and that has received a rewrite that hasn't reached feature parity yet.
I am probably the type of person referred to in the last part of xkcd 1782.
Re: Self-hosting a Matrix server for 5 years
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I thought this was a weird take too. Too often people take privacy for "I can do what I like". IMO deleting something you've sent to someone else is not a privacy concern at all.
IIRC it is possible to have some clever encryption so that the person you sent your message to can prove to their own satisfaction that it came from you, but they cannot prove to anyone else that it came from you. Which gives you plausible deniability; you can always claim that your contact forged the message. Can't remember what the algorithm is called.
Re: Self-hosting a Matrix server for 5 years
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
A protocol can mandate forced deletion. A particular client implementation may ignore it, or some users may circumvent it, so it would be a weaker kind of feature, but still a feature. And depending on circumstances it can be quite useful.
A protocol can only support, never mandate. If I send you "DELETE MSG #4829" and you do nothing and reply with "200 OK; DELETE MSG #4829", nobody observing the protocol's messages will ever know what happened. Sure, an omniscent being could say "but he internally broke protocol, he didn't delete the message!", but by definition if something cannot be verified inside the protocol, it is outside of protocol.
In practice, in federated networks bad actors end up being blacklisted. It does not provide any "formal" guarantee, but… it tends to work fine enough. For this specific "deletion request" feature, of course it should always be seen as a convenience thing, and absolutely not about security.
As with many engineering things, it's tradeoffs all the way down. For instant messaging, a federated approach, using open protocols, offers what I value most: decentralisation, hackability, autonomy, open source. My options in this space are Matrix or XMPP. I have not attempted to self-host a matrix server, but have been very happy with my [prosody](https://prosody.im/) instance for almost a decade now.
Re: Self-hosting a Matrix server for 5 years
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
A protocol can only support, never mandate. If I send you "DELETE MSG #4829" and you do nothing and reply with "200 OK; DELETE MSG #4829", nobody observing the protocol's messages will ever know what happened. Sure, an omniscent being could say "but he internally broke protocol, he didn't delete the message!", but by definition if something cannot be verified inside the protocol, it is outside of protocol.
I don't know such definition frankly. And to the best of my knowledge there are plenty of things which people call "protocols" strongly prescribing actions non-verifiable in the very sense you used. That said I'm not here for a terminological discussion. We may call it green cheese, but it's still a useful feature.