Gajim - 2023-12-08

Gajim introduced "security labels". What are these exactly? Where are these documented? Would it make sense to name these according to the FIRST TLP scheme TLP:AMBER and so on? This is an international standard to tag classified documents.

jstein: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0258.html

To get idea what the use case is

But yes you can decide what the labels are

There is no restriction

And it's simply to label certain messages

The server allows you to hide these messages the depending on permissions

But I also heard of people that use it simply to label stuff

Without the permission feature

nice thank you.

Seems it would make sense to implement TLP 2.0 as default. What do you think? https://www.first.org/tlp/\

You misunderstand how it works

Labels are defined on the server

You need to add the labels there ✏

There is no need to implement some standard , simply add the labels you need

Has anyone else ever experienced that when you try to press the thumbs up button for a gitlab issue it briefly accepts it, then removes it, every time?

I'm experiencing that for https://dev.gajim.org/gajim/gajim/-/issues/7123

fjklp: sometimes that happens. Try again later :)

Thanks. In this case, I had previously used an alternate thumbs up or something. I unpressed it, then pressed the one others were using and it rejected it, so I suspect I experienced the same for this issue months back.

Seems like a gitlab bug.

fjklp: no gajim bug then :)

sure

Hello guys

https://dev.gajim.org/gajim/gajim/-/issues/10410

How do I get a read receipt like the one this guy has?

https://disroot.org/upload/06573322-52ee-71a0-a365-dec1a9108467/140cd792-6d6f-4112-b81e-d35521776b8e.png

that read marker style is really inconvenient for me

You can enable single check mark for "delivery receipts" in the settings, but the 2nd check mark for "read receipts" does not exist anymore AFAIK. Maybe I'm wrong and there's a hidden setting for that?

Delivery receipts yeah, I enabled them too

I don't really get why delivery receipts are implemented but read ones are not

I think it's because this type of read marker style ("has read up to this point") is more in line with how the protocol works, because clients don't have to mark individual messages as read according to the spec, but someone who actually implemented it might give you a more relevant answer, stay tuned ;-) ✏

nicoco: that's the reason

Clients send us the message up to which they have read

And we display exactly this information

playing the devil's advocate, but it would be OK to "double check mar" messages up to the message for which we receive the marker

nicoco: hm I don't think so

It's simply a information we don't have

> I think it's because this type of read marker style ("has read up to this point") is more in line with how the protocol works, because clients don't have to mark individual messages as read according to the spec, but someone who actually implemented it might give you a more relevant answer, stay tuned ;-) I don't see a problem with that. Why mark messages as readed individually? > Clients send us the message up to which they have read You just mark all the messages above that one then

Why would we lie to our users

OK, double check mark the message for which we receive the marker with a tooltip that says "has read up to this point" then ;)

That's not a lie

And tell them a client send us a read receipt for a message if he didn't do it

Why would it be?

Because we don't have that information

client sent read receipt for the last message, it means that all messages above are read too

you can't *really* know what messages are readed, because we can't read people minds, obviously

but all IMs work like that, no?

some other protocols send read marks for each message, notably whatsapp and signal

how is that useful?

Why you need a checkmark on every message?

I'm not saying it is, just that it's implemented that way :)

well as you said, we can just have this: > with a tooltip that says "has read up to this point" then ;)

that's just some technical nuance which end-users won't care about, really

> Why you need a checkmark on every message? cause it's convenient and it's the way all other IMs look too

nicoco: it's really clunky, yeah..

lovetox: to me, the issue with the "read up to this point" thing is that it makes text "jump", and if we want read marks in groupchats (which I think we do?) it can become quite "jumpy" ✏

like

you could at least make an option for this, keeping the current thing as default..

Not really

why?

To take one of your arguments, do you know any other IM which let's you configure how a read marker is displayed?

Its simply not important enough to add 2 different ways

No

It's important for me

And my friend

at least

I see no problem with adding that option

Of course you don't see the problem, as you don't have to do it 😆

Try implementing it and you might see problems ;-) ✏

so what's the problem?

it's just a visual thing, no?

But we probably go that way anyway once we support read markers in MUC

As the current way is not practical for mucs

Good to know, cf https://dev.gajim.org/gajim/gajim/-/merge_requests/980#note_212124

> A checkmark. That would be a either second check mark in 1:1 chats (if you enable 'read receipts' in the preferences), or a change of color for this checkmark (2 states: 'received', and 'displayed'). Hope you will keep all options - text read marker, two checkmarks and colored checkmark Sounds really neat! ✏

What is this feature "Media Playback"? Located in: Top menu -> Accounts -> Modify Account... -> your_account -> Privacy

https://disroot.org/upload/065735f0-7805-7450-97dc-1786e5808b34/70b567eb-89de-407d-b70d-52c7db79c5c7.png

Where can I read more about it - how does it get played media data, what kinds are supported and where does it show the data?

huuh: I for one like the "has read up to this point" really much. That's why I implemented it after having double checkmarks first. Double checkmarks in group chats carry less information than a "x,x, and x have read up to this point" row. And private group chats (where you would see those read markers) are typically small, thus it's still practical.

cal0pteryx: I'm not asking to remove it though. And if double checkmark was a thing, why was it removed?

Why not just make two options?

Because that's maintenance effort and a source of bugs

Every option multiplies ways where things can go wrong

huuh, you can use a media player on your system that has MPRIS support

the media player publishes information to the system via dbus

and gajim picks it up and publishes it

which means contacts in your contact list can see it

are there any articles on configuring it [with mpd] ?

you need to search for it

a quick search turned up https://github.com/natsukagami/mpd-mpris

but just so you know, basically no client except Gajim supports this

so while Gajim would publish the data

almost no client will show it

which XEP is it?

https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0118.html

and also Gajim shows it not very prominent

you have to go and search for it really

so .. not that great at the moment ✏

and where do I search for it?

the internet

you mean to enable it in gajim?

I enabled it, I mean where to see my current media playback in Gajim?

it sends the info to your contacts

so they can see it

I can see it in Accounts -> Advanced -> PEP Configuration -> protocol/tune

uhh, and I can't see it?

To see the currently playing info, go to your contacts list and hover your mouse pointer over the given contact, the now playing info will show up in the tooltip

yep thanks, hovering over "Note to myself" worked ✏

that's a cool feature to have, I like it ✏

yeah I hope it will improve in the future also would be cool to see which game your contact is playing

through some kind of RPC (like Discord does)

also

https://disroot.org/upload/06573868-6e5b-7fe0-a30b-e83cdc57600a/4247d732-4c22-4a27-9eee-08224bcae284.png

https://disroot.org/upload/06573868-a2e5-7b34-be03-08c082f93019/c6d33146-7ffd-4db6-b0ff-1d1ab81c93f2.png

you dont need this

why? i'll rephrase it - who would need it then? ✏

why? i'll rephrase my question - who would need it then? ✏

nobody, its used for a feature that does not work anyway

also this lib caused some crashes in the past

better not install it

okay

I thought that maybe it's the cause of my problem with p2p file transfer

basically p2p file transfer just doesn't work

i send offer to my contact and he sees nothing (and the other way around) ✏

i send offer to my contact and he sees nothing (and the other way around too) ✏

I think this is known. Maybe we should have all known non-working features listed somewhere like the wiki.

I don't know. It feels weird to keep broken stuff in any case.

what's the problem with it? why it's not working? if in the past it did, why it doesn't now? ✏

Don't know

lovetox: Seems like I should probably make an issue for the omemo cross-account muc leakage thing. I don't understand it well so if yes, is there anything you'd want me to include?

no nothing in particular

just describe what you think is happening