Gajim - 2016-05-10


  1. lobito Hi all. Anyone happen to know if OMEMO or OpenPGP work on MUCs, yet?
  2. mpan lobito, afaik neither of the plugins support multiple-recipients encryption. And for MUCs it would also be resource-hungry process, so I doubt it would be enabled by default.
  3. mpan Also I don’t know of XEP that would allow such a thing to work on MUC.
  4. Natureshadow OMEMO does work on MUCs
  5. arune In Conversations, under some conditions
  6. sol For OMEMO to work on MUCs, I'm guessing every participant must be using a client that supports OMEMO, right? What happens when there is one participant who doesn't have an OMEMO-compatible client?
  7. Holger Every participant must support OMEMO of course, and the room must be non-anonymous so that you can see the real JIDs of the participants, and they must all be on your roster so you can receive their OMEMO keys via PEP.
  8. Holger So it works as a hack, but this is not a proper solution. It will probably work better with MIX.
  9. sol How would OMEMO work with Web clients?
  10. sol Could Candy / Kaiwa work with OMEMO? And is there a simple comparison doc b/w MIX and MUC?
  11. erlehmann i found that the URL parsing fails in titles of MUCs
  12. erlehmann i have a room with the following title
  13. erlehmann „Das ist ja widerwärtig!“ – „Und illegal.“ <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjlAQQ76qTY>
  14. erlehmann in the MUC title, the last „>“ is taken as to be part of the URL
  15. erlehmann which is wrong
  16. erlehmann i think it is also opened with another browser
  17. Link Mauve sol, the obvious solution would be to use localStorage for the keys.
  18. Link Mauve sol, libolm already has an Emscripten target, if we are moving in that direction.
  19. Link Mauve sol, and also, MIX isn’t usable yet, nor really specified against what was decided at the last Summit, but the basic idea is MUC over multiple PubSub nodes, with an anonimising proxy in-between.
  20. Asterix erlehmann‎: it's wrong ... yes and no ... ">" is an allowed char in URLs
  21. Link Mauve Asterix, yes, but generally you want to match only the same numbers of > than <, ) than (, etc.
  22. Asterix generally yes, but that's not always true. And the regex is quite hard to find (if possible)
  23. Link Mauve Look at what poezio or urxvt are doing.
  24. mathieui Link Mauve, badly?
  25. Link Mauve mathieui, not in this case, AFAIK.
  26. Link Mauve Nor in many other cases.
  27. Link Mauve The only one I know that poezio doesn’t do correctly and urxvt does is leading , or . without any separator.
  28. mpan rfc2396, 2.4.3: “The angle-bracket "<" and ">" and double-quote (") characters are excluded because they are often used as the delimiters around URI in text documents and protocol fields.”
  29. mpan And appendix A gives the full syntax, with both “<” and “>” not being included as valid part of URI (hence URL too).
  30. Asterix hmmm strange, I already saw somewhere that it's valid ...
  31. Asterix Ha no, it was the comma char
  32. Asterix #6842
  33. bot Asterix: http://trac.gajim.org/ticket/6842 (wrong parsing of URL in the chat window)
  34. Asterix but > are not supposed to be detected:
  35. Asterix #5840
  36. bot Asterix: http://trac.gajim.org/ticket/5840 (Gajim shouldn't consider "&gt;" as part of a URL)
  37. Asterix this is a great website: <https://gajim.org>
  38. Asterix > is not included