Ian Goldberg <i...@cypherpunks.ca> writes: > On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 02:48:12PM -0400, Jurre van Bergen wrote: >> I think once OTRv4 is out of the door, just like OTRv1, OTRv2 should be >> dropped. @ian? @nik? > > I'm in principle fine with dropping v2 support. I wouldn't mind a quick > look-around at what OTR implementations still don't support v3, though. > pidgin-otr does, of course. What about Adium? Others?
By dropping support, is this about removing it from libotr? I am not quite following standard vs reference implementation vs ? As a user, a few semi-related semi-OT things come to mind: I had perceived Adium to be no longer a viable project. But I see that it has a stable release that's new enough, but the unstable channel is multiple years old. The trac has an expired certificate. So I wonder if Adium is still viable. With pidgin and adium, I have had lost OTR messages, apparently from one side using keys the other side has lost due to restart. I hope v4 has systematic mitigation for this. Conversations has dropped OTR support, leaving OMEMO. I am unclear on the relative merits of OMEMO and OTR, but I've been an OTR user for a really long time (<= 2005), so I have a pro-OTR cultural bias and would like to see it succeed. I wonder if anyone for otr-land has engaged Conversations about this. _______________________________________________ OTR-dev mailing list OTR-dev@lists.cypherpunks.ca http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/mailman/listinfo/otr-dev