On Tue, 04 Jun 2024 17:29:00 +0200 Marvin W <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Goffi, > > Thanks for your message. > > I know I'm not particularly good with words and my language sometimes > tends to be perceived as aggressive or exclusive. I did not intend to > attack or insult anyone and I apologize if I did. > > On Tue, 2024-06-04 at 14:52 +0200, Goffi wrote: > > Though I usually appreciate your feedback, I find this particular > > comment > > especially pedantic and patronizing. You are aware that you say > > people who > > implemented OMEMO, for instance, were irresponsible and should be > > "educated", > > right? > > The people that *first* implemented and deployed OMEMO to a large > number of end-users of the public XMPP network, before making a > reasonable effort to stabilize the specification and to actually get > the implementation itself to a stable state were in my opinion acting > too careless. > > It's not always black and white, and to some degree the fault was and > is often the XSF here, which is what this discussion was meant to be > about: To adjust our XSF procedures to better reflect the need of the > community. > > OMEMO was a mess, I think we all remember the days when half the > messages on half of the devices would show up as "Message is OMEMO > encrypted", even if their client was supposedly supporting some kind > of OMEMO. Developers of clients were put on a public blame list for > not implementing OMEMO fast enough. The reference for how things > needed to work was not a specification, but a single implementation.
As a person who is using OMEMO that is still the case. Nothing has changed. I get OMEMO encryption problems regularly to the point that i am using it only if: - The person I am talking to has only one device - Owns/will own the device for a long time and the key will remain static - Is 1:1 conversation Everything else is doomed to fail and get the XMPP is bad reaction. MSavoritias PS. I am NOT saying this to get responses of "File bug reports" or "Work together to improve things", for multiple reasons. One of them being that in general the community seems to have given up on making OMEMO work. > > And OMEMO still is a mess, next to nobody is implementing the latest > revision, even though we know there are ways to upgrade that do not > break anything. And those few that only implement the latest revision > are totally screwed because their client is incompatible with what all > others do, so they can't even do a lot of testing and are considered > incompatible to OMEMO, even if technically it's everyone else that's > incompatible. > > I sure hope we learn from this, "educate" ourselves and try to make > sure it won't happen like that again. > > Marvin > _______________________________________________ > Standards mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
