mastodon - Link to source

#XMPP groups are centralized depending on a single server, if server dies the group is gone, server stores group metadata

#Matrix servers store a lot of group metadata across servers

with #DeltaChat the server stores ZERO group metadata/state you don't depend on any server and can easily migrate your profile keeping group state and history in your devices

if Delta Chat had "super groups" with admin/moderation for public rooms, would you switch?

support.delta.chat/t/spec-prop…

#PleaseBoost #boost


Spec Proposal: Super Groups

Delta Chat Spec Proposal: Super Groups Terminology semi-public group: A group that is intended to be used for more or less public interactions, its invitation link can be shared in public spaces like social media or websites.
Delta Chat

  • yes, please! (76%, 36 votes)
  • no (23%, 11 votes)
47 voters. Poll end: in 5 days

#xmpp #matrix #boost #deltachat #pleaseboost
This entry was edited (1 day ago)

ArcaneChat reshared this.

in reply to ArcaneChat

mastodon - Link to source

Debacle

I voted "no", but not because I'ld dislike the feature. To the contrary, it would be very nice!

Still, I would not switch, because other features, which I use everyday in #Jabber/#XMPP are still missing, e.g. gateways to IRC, Matrix, and SMS. Also: I'm using Jabber since 12 years and convinced most friends and family to use it. Can't migrate them again.

But please go for it! Even as a Jabber fanperson: Everything that makes free and federated chat better, gets my applause!

#xmpp #Jabber
in reply to Debacle

mastodon - Link to source

ArcaneChat

> Still, I would not switch, because other features, which I use everyday in #Jabber/#XMPP are still missing, e.g. gateways to IRC, Matrix, and SMS.

actually this is not true, there are bridges to #Matrix, #IRC, #XMPP, #WhatsApp and many other platforms via #Matterbridge

but your point still stands valid, if you are a happy xmpp user why to switch? for me it is a no-go for the mentioned problems of xmpp group centralization etc. and difficulty of onboarding

#xmpp #matrix #whatsapp #Jabber #irc #matterbridge
This entry was edited (13 hours ago)
in reply to ArcaneChat

mastodon - Link to source

Debacle

Thanks! I'm aware of Matterbridge, but did not know (or forgot), that Delta is supported. Cool!

As soon as I have contacts on Delta, I will remember Matterbridge!

Btw. there is a #XEP (#XMPP extension) for federated group chats:

xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0289.h…

But TTBOMK, it never took off. Maybe it was never deemed necessary?

Btw. #Jabber onboarding got simpler thanks to blog.prosody.im/great-invitati… implemented in #prosody and #ejabberd.

Anyway, making Delta more powerful is a good thing!

Great Invitations

There are two kinds of servers on the XMPP network today: those with public registration, and those without. The servers that support registration generally allow you to create accounts via the web, or using your XMPP client (XEP-0077).
blog.prosody.im
#xmpp #Jabber #xep #prosody #ejabberd
in reply to rakoo

mastodon - Link to source

ArcaneChat

@rakoo

> the enemy isn't xmpp or matrix

notice that no one talked about enemies here, I don't see xmpp and matrix as enemies, it is about if there is a need that would be covered by adding such "super groups" feature or would it be a waste of time and people are already happy with what xmpp/matrix offer, that is all,

of course if I wake up tomorrow and xmpp/matrix replaced completely #WhatsApp I will be the happiest person in the world

@debacle

#whatsapp @Debacle @rakoo
in reply to ArcaneChat

mastodon - Link to source

mathieui

I'm a happy XMPP user, so no, but I have some questions about this proposal: DC groupchats are supposed to be between trusted users, so group membership is usually not an issue, but in this new case, with the goal of having a "semi-public" room, how do you handle membership (thinking about abuse specifically), and how do you manage message distribution without any data on the server or relay? I don't know much about deltachat and I did not manage to find a spec for the current group chats, but the proposal seems a bit disjointed in terms of identity management with the rest of DC
This entry was edited (12 hours ago)
in reply to mathieui

mastodon - Link to source

ArcaneChat

at the end of the poll there is a link to the proposal in the forum, there is a point about "group admin" and link to a description of how such "group owner" can be implemented

about the "data on the server", what it is meant is group state and metadata on the server, of course data is transmitted/relayed as usual over the chatmail relays, but for the server that is not different form any other message, just an encrypted blob they have to deliver, group state lives p2p on devices

This entry was edited (12 hours ago)
in reply to ArcaneChat

mastodon - Link to source

mathieui

yes, I read it, but forgot to follow the link to the "group owner" proposal. I'm not sure how this meshes together since I guess for "semi-public" groups you would not want to vet everyone joining one-by-one (not that it would be a bad idea, but it does get tedious).
My question on membership is related to this, I guess it is not clear to me if the invitation link works once or if it can be re-used and as such shared publicly, in which case I would guess the owner would need to auto-approve in the client to update membership to everyone in the group on every join to keep things flowing.
in reply to mathieui

mastodon - Link to source

ArcaneChat

@mathieui the owner shares invite link with people, with the invite link people can join automatically without needing approval, if some troll/spammer joins, the admin can retract/invalidate the shared link, so the spammer can't keep using it to re-join with new account every time they are kicked from the group, a new link is generated and admin can share that then

more advanced stuff can be done like not allowing to send msgs, media or links when someone is just X days/hours new to the group

@mathieui
⇧