On 2 April 2014 06:43, Ben Laurie <[email protected]> wrote: > On 31 March 2014 20:11, Ximin Luo <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm more and more favouring the idea that, in an end-to-end-secure system, >> you should *not* consider a message "definitely received" by the intended >> recipients, until you receive an ACK from them that strongly (but perhaps >> indirectly) refers to the message that you sent. (With email this is a no-no >> but here we've already authorized the sender.) > > +1! > > I once had a bug in my XMPP server that caused it to drop ~50% of > messages. It took a surprisingly long time and some rather odd > conversations before anyone noticed.
Facebook somewhat recently added in a feature where, when you send a message to a user, and you can see when they 'saw' it. Whole idea of read receipts skeeves me out. My software will receive a message from you. I may very well spend a single second glancing at it to determine whether or not it is time-sensitive. But the fact that you know I received it now implies that I need to get to it and reply to it. Or confirms conclusively that I received but chose to ignore. I don't like my software leaking time of receipt or time of access. -tom _______________________________________________ Messaging mailing list [email protected] https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/messaging
