On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:37:57PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 07:24:58PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: > > /commands on non-irc chats should not be processed by the irc module. > > This way, we don't ever leak on non-irc channels. > > > > On irc channels, /nonexisting should get mapped to plain "nonexisting", > > so it will get properly encrypted by otr. > > > > On irc channels, /existing commands should go out as-is. They should not > > get encrypted or they won't work. The user is expected to realise that. > > (hey - its an irc user, they know :) > > > > My use of /me really comes from the MUD adventure days. It would really > > only suppress the " says:" prefix so you could 'emote', eg "/me smiles". > > I have no idea what you're really saying here. > > You want IRC to show a literal "/me" to the other person, and not > use the CTCP ACTION?
What if, when the user types "/me action", the prpl-irc plugin passes "/me action" to the pidgin-otr plugin, and sends the result as a PRIVMSG. Then the receiving prpl-irc plugin, when it decrypts and *receives* "PRIVMSG ... /me action" from the sender, treats it as if it had received "ACTION action"? The trick would be that the sending (but not the receiving) prpl-irc would need to know whether OTR was enabled, but it could easily check that after the emit of sending-im-msg returns? > If I type /nonexisting, you also want to send that over IRC, > rather than just generate an error that that command doesn't > exit? I can't speak for Paul, but I wouldn't say so. - Ian _______________________________________________ OTR-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/mailman/listinfo/otr-dev
