OTR in Pidgin?
ml at update.uu.se
Tue Jan 13 04:32:17 EST 2009
tis 2009-01-13 klockan 01:21 -0800 skrev Ka-Hing Cheung:
> On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 21:08 -0800, Casey Ho wrote:
> > As the survey results indicated, encrypted IM support is as popular as
> > VV support .
> > How do you all feel about including the OTR plugin by default in Pidgin?
> (are there OTR developers on this list?)
> 1) Is the pidgin-otr plugin actively developed? Is OTR itself actively
> developed? What kinds of things does it break? I've heard that it breaks
> IM images, and maybe custom smileys as well? Are there plans to make
> things not break?
It definatly breaks custom smileys (at least on XMPP, but probably for
MSN as well), because decryption is done once the message reaches
Pidgin, so the PRPL has no chance to parse message (in XMPP it looks for
<img/> tags in XHTML-IM content).
There is, however, discussions about E2E encryption for XMPP going on.
There is a proto-XEP (XTLS). I think this is the way it should work (as
a protocol extension), ofcourse f.ex. SILC always has E2E encryption, if
I understand how that works.
What could be nice though is some API in libpurple to tell if a
conversation is E2E encrypted, this way UIs could indicate it, and
perhaps allow the user to mandate it.
> 2) I don't think we should just go out and "adopt" something if their
> developers don't want to push to us. Being included also means it's
> subject to many restrictions that we have such as library dependencies,
> release schedules, etc. I can see that not everyone wants to go through
> 3) If it's really in that much demand, why don't people ask distros to
> include it by default? I think that's the best way to give what the
> users want without having to somehow have 2 groups that never really
> interacted work together.
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at pidgin.im
More information about the Devel