On Jun 11, 2011, at 12:25 PM, Eric Richie <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2011, at 12:34 PM, John Bailey wrote:
>
>> On 06/11/2011 11:06 AM, Eric Richie wrote:
>>> It's always something...
>>>
>>> I'd really prefer that we had an actual fix if at all possible. I don't
>>> want to
>>> see us get into a situation where we go back to the old method, only to have
>>> that fall apart next week and need to rush another release to fix the fix.
>>
>> I agree entirely. See below.
>>
>>> John, do you guys know anything about this yet? Is it related to the
>>> agreement
>>> signing?
>>
>> I suspect the fact that our key hasn't been blacklisted yet is due to the
>> fact
>> that Ivan was actively speaking with someone at ICQ. I could be mistaken,
>> though.
>>>
>>> As much as I hate to say it, this is one of the few situations where we
>>> should
>>> hold 1.4.2 again until we know more about what's going on. If we find out
>>> that
>>> it's temporary and will require no changes on our part, we'll move forward.
>>> If
>>> it requires a fix, I think we should try to do so prior to release.
>>
>> If you need a temporary fix, I'd say use one of the official clients' keys.
>> It's going to be difficult for them to invalidate those keys without hurting
>> their own users, and it'd still be a cat-and-mouse game where all we'd have
>> to
>> do is simply keep copying their new keys.
>
> If that's the case then we might as well just use the official Mac client's
> key and see how it plays out with the rest.
>
> Any objections?
I think that's the best plan. There is no advantage to us at present of using a
custom key, since this only allows them to block access as we've seen in the
current case.
-Evan
>
> -Eric
