On 05/08/2018 03:15 PM, Ian Goldberg wrote:
<snip>
* Last I've seen, it wasn't explicitly stated whether or not OTRv2 is to
be dropped. In the implementation I should be able to preserve support
for OTRv2, but is this desirable? (I know the modes imply OTRv3 and/or
4, still ...)
I think once OTRv4 is out of the door, just like OTRv1, OTRv2 should be
dropped. @ian? @nik?
I'm in principle fine with dropping v2 support. I wouldn't mind a quick
look-around at what OTR implementations still don't support v3, though.
pidgin-otr does, of course. What about Adium? Others?
As per the excellent list made by the otrv4 team:
https://github.com/otrv4/otrv4/wiki/Client-OTR-implementation-overview
The only implementation not fully otrv3 would be Potr, that target weechat-otr
and Gajim.
The problem with Adium, it's badly maintained, it's missing SMP and their Trac
SSL certificate has been expired and when you click through the error you get a
python stack trace.
I really wish Adium was better maintained but at this point, I think people
should use Coy.im (for
various reasons) over Adium. Which includes an otrv3 implementation in Golang.
I think it's more or less safe to say we can drop otrv2.
I'll look with koolfy into Potr.
Best,
Jurre
_______________________________________________
OTR-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/mailman/listinfo/otr-dev
