On 3 April 2014 01:54, Tom Ritter <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2 April 2014 06:43, Ben Laurie <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 31 March 2014 20:11, Ximin Luo <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I'm more and more favouring the idea that, in an end-to-end-secure system, >>> you should *not* consider a message "definitely received" by the intended >>> recipients, until you receive an ACK from them that strongly (but perhaps >>> indirectly) refers to the message that you sent. (With email this is a >>> no-no but here we've already authorized the sender.) >> >> +1! >> >> I once had a bug in my XMPP server that caused it to drop ~50% of >> messages. It took a surprisingly long time and some rather odd >> conversations before anyone noticed. > > > Facebook somewhat recently added in a feature where, when you send a > message to a user, and you can see when they 'saw' it. > > Whole idea of read receipts skeeves me out. My software will receive > a message from you. I may very well spend a single second glancing at > it to determine whether or not it is time-sensitive. But the fact that > you know I received it now implies that I need to get to it and reply > to it.
That seems like a social contract that is up to you to define, not software. Doing group messaging well without acks seems hard. Actually, doing _instant_ messaging (the clue is in the name, btw) is hard without acks, too. > Or confirms conclusively that I received but chose to ignore. > I don't like my software leaking time of receipt or time of access. Agree about time of access. In any case, s/w can't know that. _______________________________________________ Messaging mailing list [email protected] https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/messaging
