> On 1 Nov 2016, at 17:43, forenjunkie <forenjun...@chello.at> wrote:
>
> But it doesnt work with a decentral, open source kind of system.
>
> a feature like that depends on the other side deleting the message.
>
> you are lying to your users the minute you offer this feature in your client
> and not show a disclaimer.
> you promise the message will self destruct, but you can never be sure,
> because you have no control over the other side.
> you would have to show a disclaimer: We dont know if it gets deleted, we hope
> it does.
There are a couple of ways this might be able to work (to some extent anyway)
although neither are particularly great.
You could either:
a) Trust the remote user. Encryption would allow you to establish a level of
trust with the recipient. I.e. you encrypt the message and mark it for ‘self
destruct’. You then have to trust the recipient to destroy it (but at least you
don’t have to trust every server along the way). This gives you some level of
reassurance that the message will be destroyed, assuming the recipient is
trustworthy (and runs trustworthy clients).
b) Trust the remote client. If you could somehow establish a level of trust of
the remote client then you could discover that, and again have some level of
reassurance that the remote client will do the right thing. I don’t think
there’s any protocol to do this currently (i.e. certifying an application
rather than a user). It would also mean you would have to somehow maintain a
list of trusted applications/certificates.
Without this in an open, federated network then you really can’t guarantee
anything, and the semantics are more of a message expiry (i.e. this message is
no longer valid after a certain time).
Just some thoughts.
—
Ash
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: standards-unsubscr...@xmpp.org
_______________________________________________
