From lx at redundancy.redundancy.org  Fri Dec  2 20:17:34 2005
From: lx at redundancy.redundancy.org (David Thiel)
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 17:17:34 -0800
Subject: [OTR-users] sexist assumptions in README, process_receiving_im()
Message-ID: <20051203011734.GD31275@redundancy.redundancy.org>

When a private conversation is ended, the user is told:

%s has closed his private connection to you; you should do the same.

There are also multiple masculine references in the README. Obviously,
females are also potential users of using the software.

Thanks!
David


From lx at redundancy.redundancy.org  Fri Dec  2 20:26:07 2005
From: lx at redundancy.redundancy.org (David Thiel)
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 17:26:07 -0800
Subject: [OTR-users] sexist assumptions in README, process_receiving_im()
In-Reply-To: <20051203011734.GD31275@redundancy.redundancy.org>
References: <20051203011734.GD31275@redundancy.redundancy.org>
Message-ID: <20051203012607.GF31275@redundancy.redundancy.org>

On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 05:17:34PM -0800, David Thiel wrote:
> There are also multiple masculine references in the README. Obviously,
> females are also potential users of using the software.

s/using //


From gmaxwell at gmail.com  Fri Dec  2 21:37:46 2005
From: gmaxwell at gmail.com (Gregory Maxwell)
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 21:37:46 -0500
Subject: [OTR-users] sexist assumptions in README, process_receiving_im()
In-Reply-To: <20051203011734.GD31275@redundancy.redundancy.org>
References: <20051203011734.GD31275@redundancy.redundancy.org>
Message-ID: <e692861c0512021837i84bf4c6v8bf1a6be159aeff2@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/2/05, David Thiel <lx at redundancy.redundancy.org> wrote:
> When a private conversation is ended, the user is told:
>
> %s has closed his private connection to you; you should do the same.
>
> There are also multiple masculine references in the README. Obviously,
> females are also potential users of using the software.

I hope you are aware that in English when the gender is unknown we use
the masculine.

To quote the resident OTR using female on your complaint "I think it's stupid."



From lx at redundancy.redundancy.org  Fri Dec  2 22:01:13 2005
From: lx at redundancy.redundancy.org (David Thiel)
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 19:01:13 -0800
Subject: [OTR-users] sexist assumptions in README, process_receiving_im()
In-Reply-To: <e692861c0512021837i84bf4c6v8bf1a6be159aeff2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20051203011734.GD31275@redundancy.redundancy.org> <e692861c0512021837i84bf4c6v8bf1a6be159aeff2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20051203030113.GA789@redundancy.redundancy.org>

On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 09:37:46PM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > There are also multiple masculine references in the README. Obviously,
> > females are also potential users of using the software.
> 
> I hope you are aware that in English when the gender is unknown we use
> the masculine.

According to whom? Is there some problem with "ended their session"?
Even if you make that claim for the documentation, in the context of the
status message, the gender of the other person *is* known to the end
user, thus making the pronoun inaccurate if that person is a female.


From gmaxwell at gmail.com  Fri Dec  2 22:17:30 2005
From: gmaxwell at gmail.com (Gregory Maxwell)
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 22:17:30 -0500
Subject: [OTR-users] sexist assumptions in README, process_receiving_im()
In-Reply-To: <20051203030113.GA789@redundancy.redundancy.org>
References: <20051203011734.GD31275@redundancy.redundancy.org>
	 <e692861c0512021837i84bf4c6v8bf1a6be159aeff2@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20051203030113.GA789@redundancy.redundancy.org>
Message-ID: <e692861c0512021917v51d0140m55a5139c044ff996@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/2/05, David Thiel <lx at redundancy.redundancy.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 09:37:46PM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> > > There are also multiple masculine references in the README. Obviously,
> > > females are also potential users of using the software.
> > I hope you are aware that in English when the gender is unknown we use
> > the masculine.
>
> According to whom?

You're kidding, right? Almost every style guide out there, including
the Chicago Manual of style. Are you not a native speaker of English?
(not trying to be rude, I'm just shocked you don't know this). English
lacks a gender neutral singular personal pronoun.

>Is there some problem with "ended their session"?

'Their' is plural and OTR doesn't yet support multi user sessions?
:)

I don't think it would be bad to rephrase it to avoid a pronoun
alltogher, but it strikes me as an odd complaint.

> Even if you make that claim for the documentation, in the context of the
> status message, the gender of the other person *is* known to the end
> user, thus making the pronoun inaccurate if that person is a female.

It is the software speaking, and it doesn't know.  And why are you so
sure I know the gender of the people I talk to? :)



From lx at redundancy.redundancy.org  Fri Dec  2 22:45:34 2005
From: lx at redundancy.redundancy.org (David Thiel)
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 19:45:34 -0800
Subject: [OTR-users] sexist assumptions in README, process_receiving_im()
In-Reply-To: <e692861c0512021917v51d0140m55a5139c044ff996@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20051203011734.GD31275@redundancy.redundancy.org> <e692861c0512021837i84bf4c6v8bf1a6be159aeff2@mail.gmail.com> <20051203030113.GA789@redundancy.redundancy.org> <e692861c0512021917v51d0140m55a5139c044ff996@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20051203034534.GB789@redundancy.redundancy.org>

On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 10:17:30PM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> 'Their' is plural and OTR doesn't yet support multi user sessions?

"Their" is indeed traditionally plural, but is in common usage as a
singular gender-neutral pronoun, and has been for some time. It's fairly
well established now, though there are some pedants who still can't
stand it for some reason. Some interesting reading:

http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html

> I don't think it would be bad to rephrase it to avoid a pronoun
> alltogher, but it strikes me as an odd complaint.

In my opinion, that's probably the best course. The complaint is mostly
that it looks rather silly to see "Rebecca has ended his private
communications with you". The gender in this cause is obvious to me,
because I know this person and know that she is female.

Thanks,
David


From gmaxwell at gmail.com  Fri Dec  2 22:52:13 2005
From: gmaxwell at gmail.com (Gregory Maxwell)
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 22:52:13 -0500
Subject: [OTR-users] sexist assumptions in README, process_receiving_im()
In-Reply-To: <20051203034534.GB789@redundancy.redundancy.org>
References: <20051203011734.GD31275@redundancy.redundancy.org>
	 <e692861c0512021837i84bf4c6v8bf1a6be159aeff2@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20051203030113.GA789@redundancy.redundancy.org>
	 <e692861c0512021917v51d0140m55a5139c044ff996@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20051203034534.GB789@redundancy.redundancy.org>
Message-ID: <e692861c0512021952n11d7159dpedddb9149c67e733@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/2/05, David Thiel <lx at redundancy.redundancy.org> wrote:
> > I don't think it would be bad to rephrase it to avoid a pronoun
> > alltogher, but it strikes me as an odd complaint.
>
> In my opinion, that's probably the best course. The complaint is mostly
> that it looks rather silly to see "Rebecca has ended his private
> communications with you". The gender in this cause is obvious to me,
> because I know this person and know that she is female.

Then why didn't you just initally suggest we change it to "Rebecca has
ended the private communcation with you" or "Private communcation
ended by remote system" or any of the other nearly infinite
permutations which involve neither gender confusion nor misuse of the
personal plural?

You could have just done that yet you saw fitting to claim sexism.
Pardon me while I cough 'bullshit'.



From lx at redundancy.redundancy.org  Fri Dec  2 23:10:40 2005
From: lx at redundancy.redundancy.org (David Thiel)
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 20:10:40 -0800
Subject: [OTR-users] sexist assumptions in README, process_receiving_im()
In-Reply-To: <e692861c0512021952n11d7159dpedddb9149c67e733@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20051203011734.GD31275@redundancy.redundancy.org> <e692861c0512021837i84bf4c6v8bf1a6be159aeff2@mail.gmail.com> <20051203030113.GA789@redundancy.redundancy.org> <e692861c0512021917v51d0140m55a5139c044ff996@mail.gmail.com> <20051203034534.GB789@redundancy.redundancy.org> <e692861c0512021952n11d7159dpedddb9149c67e733@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20051203041040.GC789@redundancy.redundancy.org>

On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 10:52:13PM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Then why didn't you just initally suggest we change it to "Rebecca has
> ended the private communcation with you" or "Private communcation
> ended by remote system" or any of the other nearly infinite
> permutations which involve neither gender confusion nor misuse of the
> personal plural?

I didn't make a suggestion at all, since the exact syntax of how it
could be corrected doesn't really matter. How about "Rebecca has ended
private communication with you" - or would it be "communications"?
Any of those suggestions are fine.

> You could have just done that yet you saw fitting to claim sexism.

I should clarify then - I didn't know that such offense would be taken
on a function being "sexist", and I meant it rather tongue in cheek.
My actual complaint is that the message is awkward when the person
it applies to is not male. It's not meant to be an affront to your
grammatical prowess or the code as a whole. My apologies if I offended.

-David


From jcohen07 at brandeis.edu  Sat Dec  3 13:28:51 2005
From: jcohen07 at brandeis.edu (Jason Cohen)
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 13:28:51 -0500
Subject: [OTR-users] sexist assumptions in README, process_receiving_im()
In-Reply-To: <20051203041040.GC789@redundancy.redundancy.org>
References: <20051203011734.GD31275@redundancy.redundancy.org> <e692861c0512021837i84bf4c6v8bf1a6be159aeff2@mail.gmail.com> <20051203030113.GA789@redundancy.redundancy.org> <e692861c0512021917v51d0140m55a5139c044ff996@mail.gmail.com> <20051203034534.GB789@redundancy.redundancy.org> <e692861c0512021952n11d7159dpedddb9149c67e733@mail.gmail.com> <20051203041040.GC789@redundancy.redundancy.org>
Message-ID: <4391E3E3.80806@brandeis.edu>

I'm surprised David's remarks were immediately attacked as "stupid" and
"bullshit" without even a consideration of their validity. Some have
said that he must be a non-English speaker to have made such a
ridiculous request. Perhaps as a non-English speaker he noticed
something strange that you all have become accustomed to. The fact that
"his" is /still /used as a gender-neutral pronoun doesn't prove that the
statement is not sexist. It only proves that our language itself is sexist.

If you're trying to refer to an individual with an unknown gender you
have three options: 1) use "him" (the common solution), 2) use "their"
even though it is a plural pronoun,or 3) use his/her, which I would
imagine some of you may find awkward English. The fact that so many
people use "their" incorrectly as a singular pronoun shows that at least
some people have a desire for a gender-neutral pronoun and are forced to
resort to incorrect grammar so that their writing isn't perceived as
awkward.

Why can't we just change the sexist and illogical convention and begin
using "his/her"? This sounds awkward to most English speakers only
because they're not accustomed to hearing or seeing it. Yet, that
strikes me as a pretty poor argument for continuing to use "his" when
referring to an individual of unknown gender that not only sounds
awkward to non-English speakers but is in addition conceptually flawed
and a vestige of a patriarchal society that did consider women
second-class citizens.

It's also not just "his" that poses this problem. People still refer to
mankind, businessmen, firemen, fisherman, man-made, mailman, policemen,
congressman etc. There's nothing exclusively male about any of the
mentioned professions, yet they are commonly or exclusively referred to
with a non gender-neutral term. Likewise, man-made and mankind are
referring to humanity and not just men so it would be far more
appropriate to refer to humankind and human-made. However, society has
successfully shifted away from some gendered terms such as stewardess
which is now commonly referred to as a flight attendant without any
awkwardness in its usage. I think it is important to note that such a
large number of native English speakers use "their" as a singular
pronoun that its usage has now become standard for non-formal writing.
Many English speakers don't even realize that their usage of "their" is
grammatically incorrect as its usage has become so common. I therefore
see no difficulty in replacing his/her with his. It may be awkward for a
short period time, but it will become normal over time, just as other
changes in our language have come to be accepted.

Jason Cohen

David Thiel wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 10:52:13PM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>   
>> Then why didn't you just initally suggest we change it to "Rebecca has
>> ended the private communcation with you" or "Private communcation
>> ended by remote system" or any of the other nearly infinite
>> permutations which involve neither gender confusion nor misuse of the
>> personal plural?
>>     
>
> I didn't make a suggestion at all, since the exact syntax of how it
> could be corrected doesn't really matter. How about "Rebecca has ended
> private communication with you" - or would it be "communications"?
> Any of those suggestions are fine.
>
>   
>> You could have just done that yet you saw fitting to claim sexism.
>>     
>
> I should clarify then - I didn't know that such offense would be taken
> on a function being "sexist", and I meant it rather tongue in cheek.
> My actual complaint is that the message is awkward when the person
> it applies to is not male. It's not meant to be an affront to your
> grammatical prowess or the code as a whole. My apologies if I offended.
>
> -David
> _______________________________________________
> OTR-users mailing list
> OTR-users at lists.cypherpunks.ca
> http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/mailman/listinfo/otr-users
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/pipermail/otr-users/attachments/20051203/ff2d7232/attachment.html>

From gmaxwell at gmail.com  Sat Dec  3 14:36:47 2005
From: gmaxwell at gmail.com (Gregory Maxwell)
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 14:36:47 -0500
Subject: [OTR-users] sexist assumptions in README, process_receiving_im()
In-Reply-To: <4391E3E3.80806@brandeis.edu>
References: <20051203011734.GD31275@redundancy.redundancy.org>
	 <e692861c0512021837i84bf4c6v8bf1a6be159aeff2@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20051203030113.GA789@redundancy.redundancy.org>
	 <e692861c0512021917v51d0140m55a5139c044ff996@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20051203034534.GB789@redundancy.redundancy.org>
	 <e692861c0512021952n11d7159dpedddb9149c67e733@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20051203041040.GC789@redundancy.redundancy.org>
	 <4391E3E3.80806@brandeis.edu>
Message-ID: <e692861c0512031136u7a3fe106g3664d403f1ff457a@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/3/05, Jason Cohen <jcohen07 at brandeis.edu> wrote:
>  I'm surprised David's remarks were immediately attacked as "stupid" and
> "bullshit" without even a consideration of their validity. Some have said
> that he must be a non-English speaker to have made such a ridiculous
> request.
[snip]

It's an artifact of the language, yes, to accuse the author of the
readme (or the readme itself) of sexist assumptions as David did is
both stupid and bullshit.

>  If you're trying to refer to an individual with an unknown gender you have
> three options: 1) use "him" (the common solution), 2) use "their" even
> though it is a plural pronoun,or 3) use his/her, which I would imagine some
> of you may find awkward English.

Or just use a sentence structure that doesn't require a pronoun, as is
most natural here.

>  Why can't we just change the sexist and illogical convention and begin
> using "his/her"?

We're talking about a readme for a somewhat obsecure piece of software
here, not the chicago manual of style.

People in writing and academic circles have not solved this in a way
which makes everyone happy, so it would be foolish to assume we could.

>This sounds awkward to most English speakers only because
> they're not accustomed to hearing or seeing it. Yet, that strikes me as a
> pretty poor argument for continuing to use "his" when referring to an
> individual of unknown gender that not only sounds awkward to non-English
> speakers but is in addition conceptually flawed and a vestige of a
> patriarchal society that did consider women second-class citizens.

The claim that the mere use of the male word is an example of sexism
has not been substantiated. If it sounds odd to a non-native speaker
it is because they do not realize that we use the male word to refer
to gendern unknow as well.

>  It's also not just "his" that poses this problem. People still refer to
> mankind, businessmen, firemen, fisherman, man-made, mailman, policemen,
> congressman etc. There's nothing exclusively male about any of the mentioned
> professions, yet they are commonly or exclusively referred to with a non
> gender-neutral term.

Here your own sexism shows: We are all man, including women.  Here you
attempt to say that men and women are not the same thing.



From jcohen07 at brandeis.edu  Sat Dec  3 17:11:44 2005
From: jcohen07 at brandeis.edu (Jason Cohen)
Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 17:11:44 -0500
Subject: [OTR-users] Discussion of the use of "his" as a gender-neutral pronoun in an
 unlikely place
Message-ID: <43921820.8000906@brandeis.edu>


Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 12/3/05, Jason Cohen <jcohen07 at brandeis.edu> wrote:
>   
>>  I'm surprised David's remarks were immediately attacked as "stupid" and
>> "bullshit" without even a consideration of their validity. Some have said
>> that he must be a non-English speaker to have made such a ridiculous
>> request.
>>     
> [snip]
>
> It's an artifact of the language, yes, to accuse the author of the
> readme (or the readme itself) of sexist assumptions as David did is
> both stupid and bullshit.
>
>   
Neither David nor I  accused the author of being sexist. Rather, we
accused the author of using an archaic language convention that we
believe is illogical and sexist. We didn't mount personal attacks on the
author. In fact, my entire email was directed at changing our language,
not at attacking the author or the README.

>>  If you're trying to refer to an individual with an unknown gender you have
>> three options: 1) use "him" (the common solution), 2) use "their" even
>> though it is a plural pronoun,or 3) use his/her, which I would imagine some
>> of you may find awkward English.
>>     
>
> Or just use a sentence structure that doesn't require a pronoun, as is
> most natural here.
>
>   
That is a fine solution for this particular case. My response was more
general. There are certainly going to be times where it's most
appropriate to use a singular pronoun when the sex of the individual
referred to is unknown. I am merely arguing that when that case occurs
"his/her" or "his or her" should be used as an alternative to the common
"his".
>>  Why can't we just change the sexist and illogical convention and begin
>> using "his/her"?
>>     
>
> We're talking about a readme for a somewhat obsecure piece of software
> here, not the chicago manual of style.
>
> People in writing and academic circles have not solved this in a way
> which makes everyone happy, so it would be foolish to assume we could.
>
>   
I understand your willingness to stay out of the fray for a still
contested issue. However, unless you decide to refrain from using "his"
when referring to an unknown individual throughout all OTR's
documentation, you are making a choice to continue the status quo. By
continuing to use "his" in this situation, you are stating that you
accept its usage and find it appropriate. If you're going to use
singular pronouns, abstaining from the debate is simply not an option.
>> This sounds awkward to most English speakers only because
>> they're not accustomed to hearing or seeing it. Yet, that strikes me as a
>> pretty poor argument for continuing to use "his" when referring to an
>> individual of unknown gender that not only sounds awkward to non-English
>> speakers but is in addition conceptually flawed and a vestige of a
>> patriarchal society that did consider women second-class citizens.
>>     
>
> The claim that the mere use of the male word is an example of sexism
> has not been substantiated. If it sounds odd to a non-native speaker
> it is because they do not realize that we use the male word to refer
> to gendern unknow as well.
>
>   
It sounds odd to a non-native speaker because it doesn't appear logical
to use a male pronoun when referring to an individual of an unknown
gender. You continue to support the practice because it's a convention
of the English language. I tried to stress in my last email that this
fact is not conclusive. Simply because our language has a particular
convention which has been used for hundreds of years does not mean that
the convention is appropriate. Some gendered terms have already been
replaced by gender-neutral terms such as flight attendant as a
replacement for stewardess. There is an academic debate occurring at the
moment as to whether we should  change the  language to reflect  a
commitment to gender equality. You can't abstain from that debate by
saying that this is how the way things have been done in the past and
therefore are appropriate for the present.
>>  It's also not just "his" that poses this problem. People still refer to
>> mankind, businessmen, firemen, fisherman, man-made, mailman, policemen,
>> congressman etc. There's nothing exclusively male about any of the mentioned
>> professions, yet they are commonly or exclusively referred to with a non
>> gender-neutral term.
>>     
>
> Here your own sexism shows: We are all man, including women.  Here you
> attempt to say that men and women are not the same thing.
>
>   
I believe the word man does and should refer to a male member of the
human race. I am not contesting that "Man" has in the past and continues
to be used to refer to all humans. My assertion is that it is
inappropriate to refer to humanity as Man. The use of Man to refer to
all humans suggests that men are the preferred or more important sex and
the only sex worth mentioning.  I don't  suggest that an individual who
uses the word "Man" in this way is sexist- only that the word does have
a sexist connotation.

One need only look to our history to see this.  The marriage ceremony
declares that the two individuals have become "Man and Wife". The man
retains his identity while the woman becomes a wife with all the duties
that attach to that title. Under English common law and under American
law until well into the 19th century when a woman and man married the
woman lost her civil existence. The system called "coverture" denied a
woman the right to hold property, sue in a court of law, become a juror,
or contract. Blackstone states that when a woman married she and her
husband become one- the husband. Freedom was defined as the ability to
contract and the only groups that were denied this right were slaves,
women, and children. She completely lost her existence as recognized by
the law. Despite societal change, this fact is still a part of our
language. Simone de Beauvior  argued in /The Second Sex (1949/) that the
two sexes are Men and the Other sex. Women weren't considered to have a
distinct identity but rather were referred to as a contrast to men. All
of these sexist traditions and legal practices explain why Man is used
to refer to all of humanity rather than just the male sex. If we
continue to use these sexist laden conventions we are unwittingly
enforcing sexism.

Jason Cohen
> _______________________________________________
> OTR-users mailing list
> OTR-users at lists.cypherpunks.ca
> http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/mailman/listinfo/otr-users
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/pipermail/otr-users/attachments/20051203/b3616ed4/attachment.html>

From kat at paip.net  Sun Dec  4 20:18:50 2005
From: kat at paip.net (Kat Hanna)
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 20:18:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [OTR-users] Discussion of the use of "his" as a gender-neutral
 pronoun in an unlikely place
In-Reply-To: <43921820.8000906@brandeis.edu>
References: <43921820.8000906@brandeis.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0512041946450.10830@marshall.paip.net>

Okay, I'll jump in.

I think language is important. Important to how we see the world around
us and to how we see ourselves in the world. The fact that my first
programming textbook sometimes used feminine pronouns made me feel
engaged and included in a way that most science and technology textbooks
had never done. That made a difference in my ability to see myself as
potentially successful in the field.

I favor changing constructions into gender-neutral forms when possible,
alternating the use of "she" and "he" when it isn't confusing to the
reader, and using "she or he" or "he/she" where appropriate. (In fact,
in cryptography this problem is often solved by the fact that our cast
of characters is of mixed sex.)  I am also one of those pedants about
subject-verb agreement that will not accept the so-called "singular
their".

Security software documentation often has a higher precision requirement
than that of other software. And while I'm not willing to put words into
Ian's mouth, I think he considered this particular example carefully.
It's not okay, as pretty much everyone has suggested, to substitute a
passive construction: the very point of the alert is that your buddy has
closed her/his end of the connection, *but yours is still open*.

I think that these sorts of alerts should use some form of the she/he
variety. I think other general uses of "he" in the README should be
examined to determine some reasonable alternative. And I volunteer to
do this editing after my semester ends.

[For the record, up until this point no member of the OTR dev team
had been involved in this discussion.]

Cheers.

 -Kat




From paul at cypherpunks.ca  Mon Dec  5 13:30:28 2005
From: paul at cypherpunks.ca (Paul Wouters)
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:30:28 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [OTR-users] Discussion of the use of "his" as a gender-neutral
 pronoun in an unlikely place
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0512041946450.10830@marshall.paip.net>
References: <43921820.8000906@brandeis.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0512041946450.10830@marshall.paip.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0512051927480.30999@tla.xelerance.com>

On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, Kat Hanna wrote:

> It's not okay, as pretty much everyone has suggested, to substitute a
> passive construction: the very point of the alert is that your buddy has
> closed her/his end of the connection, *but yours is still open*.

semi-off topic.
If it is that important that we close our end as well, since our remote
buddy closed his/her end, why don't we just close it instead of asking
the (local) user to close it?

Then we could just write: OTR session with $buddy closed.

Paul


From ian at cypherpunks.ca  Mon Dec  5 13:55:44 2005
From: ian at cypherpunks.ca (Ian Goldberg)
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:55:44 -0500
Subject: [OTR-users] Discussion of the use of "his" as a gender-neutral pronoun in an unlikely place
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0512051927480.30999@tla.xelerance.com>
References: <43921820.8000906@brandeis.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0512041946450.10830@marshall.paip.net> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0512051927480.30999@tla.xelerance.com>
Message-ID: <20051205185544.GH4463@smtp.paip.net>

On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 07:30:28PM +0100, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, Kat Hanna wrote:
> 
> > It's not okay, as pretty much everyone has suggested, to substitute a
> > passive construction: the very point of the alert is that your buddy has
> > closed her/his end of the connection, *but yours is still open*.
> 
> semi-off topic.
> If it is that important that we close our end as well, since our remote
> buddy closed his/her end, why don't we just close it instead of asking
> the (local) user to close it?
> 
> Then we could just write: OTR session with $buddy closed.

That's a security problem.  Suppose you were typing a long (private)
message to your buddy, and she closes her end of the private connection
just before you hit "Enter".  You absolutely do *not* want your message
to go out in the clear.  So what we do instead is this: when your buddy
closes her end of the connection, all outgoing messages to her are
*blocked* until you select whether to restart the private conversation,
or end it.

   - Ian


From lx at redundancy.redundancy.org  Mon Dec  5 14:41:33 2005
From: lx at redundancy.redundancy.org (David Thiel)
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:41:33 -0800
Subject: [OTR-users] Discussion of the use of "his" as a gender-neutral pronoun in an unlikely place
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0512041946450.10830@marshall.paip.net>
References: <43921820.8000906@brandeis.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0512041946450.10830@marshall.paip.net>
Message-ID: <20051205194133.GA90907@redundancy.redundancy.org>

On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 08:18:50PM -0500, Kat Hanna wrote:
> It's not okay, as pretty much everyone has suggested, to substitute a
> passive construction: the very point of the alert is that your buddy has
> closed her/his end of the connection, *but yours is still open*.

Actually, it seems that in OTR 3, if the remote party terminates the
OTR session, it automatically ends the session for the local user.
This being the case, I think a passive construction will do just fine.
There's no reason to instruct the user to terminate the conversation,
since it's already been done for them.

> [For the record, up until this point no member of the OTR dev team
> had been involved in this discussion.]

Thanks, that's good to know.

Cheers,
David


From lx at redundancy.redundancy.org  Mon Dec  5 14:47:35 2005
From: lx at redundancy.redundancy.org (David Thiel)
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:47:35 -0800
Subject: [OTR-users] Discussion of the use of "his" as a gender-neutral pronoun in an unlikely place
In-Reply-To: <20051205185544.GH4463@smtp.paip.net>
References: <43921820.8000906@brandeis.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0512041946450.10830@marshall.paip.net> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0512051927480.30999@tla.xelerance.com> <20051205185544.GH4463@smtp.paip.net>
Message-ID: <20051205194735.GB90907@redundancy.redundancy.org>

On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 01:55:44PM -0500, Ian Goldberg wrote:
> That's a security problem.  Suppose you were typing a long (private)
> message to your buddy, and she closes her end of the private connection
> just before you hit "Enter".  You absolutely do *not* want your message
> to go out in the clear.  So what we do instead is this: when your buddy
> closes her end of the connection, all outgoing messages to her are
> *blocked* until you select whether to restart the private conversation,
> or end it.

You're right, and this is indeed what happens - ignore my explanation in
the previous post, I was misled by the OTR icon displaying "Finished".
Here's how the logs go if you send a message after a session is
terminated by the remote user:

(11:43:16) somegirl has ended his private conversation with you; you should do the same.

(send a message)

(11:43:17) Your message was not sent.  Either end your private conversation, or restart it.

(oops, refresh)

(11:43:30) Attempting to refresh the private conversation with somegirl...
(11:43:31) Private conversation with somegirl started.



From CLAY at BROKENLADDER.COM  Mon Dec  5 17:33:01 2005
From: CLAY at BROKENLADDER.COM (CLAY SHENTRUP)
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:33:01 -0800
Subject: [OTR-users] Discussion of the use of "his" as a gender-neutral pronoun in an unlikely place
In-Reply-To: <20051205185544.GH4463@smtp.paip.net>
References: <43921820.8000906@brandeis.edu>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.58.0512041946450.10830@marshall.paip.net>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.63.0512051927480.30999@tla.xelerance.com>
	 <20051205185544.GH4463@smtp.paip.net>
Message-ID: <9129d8bb0512051433g3fac2daxc3f33f94f9a8b613@mail.gmail.com>

>
> So what we do instead is this: when your buddy
>
closes her end of the connection, all outgoing messages to her are
> *blocked* until you select whether to restart the private conversation,
> or end it.


by "end" it, you just mean "go back to allowing plain text", right?

--
THE LAST PERSON TO DIE BY FIRING SQUAD IN THE
US WAS JOHN ALBERT TAYLOR, IN UTAH IN 1996.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/pipermail/otr-users/attachments/20051205/14414cbf/attachment.html>

From ian at cypherpunks.ca  Mon Dec  5 18:50:03 2005
From: ian at cypherpunks.ca (Ian Goldberg)
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:50:03 -0500
Subject: [OTR-users] Discussion of the use of "his" as a gender-neutral pronoun in an unlikely place
In-Reply-To: <9129d8bb0512051433g3fac2daxc3f33f94f9a8b613@mail.gmail.com>
References: <43921820.8000906@brandeis.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0512041946450.10830@marshall.paip.net> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0512051927480.30999@tla.xelerance.com> <20051205185544.GH4463@smtp.paip.net> <9129d8bb0512051433g3fac2daxc3f33f94f9a8b613@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20051205235003.GI4463@smtp.paip.net>

On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 02:33:01PM -0800, CLAY SHENTRUP wrote:
> > So what we do instead is this: when your buddy closes her end of the
> > connection, all outgoing messages to her are *blocked* until you
> > select whether to restart the private conversation, or end it.
> 
> by "end" it, you just mean "go back to allowing plain text", right?

"go back to sending plaintext", but yes.

   - Ian


From erecio at polywog.org  Mon Dec  5 19:40:47 2005
From: erecio at polywog.org (Emilio M. Recio)
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 19:40:47 -0500
Subject: [OTR-users] mailing list search?
Message-ID: <4394DE0F.8090101@polywog.org>

is there a way I can do a search the mailing list archives? I compiled 
otr from scratch, both the library, and the gaim-plugin. I am also using 
a compiled version of gaim (1.5). However, even after restarting, the 
plugin doesn't show up on the list of available plugins. I checked and 
otr was installed correctly (in the Plugins directory).

-Elmo


From kat at paip.net  Mon Dec  5 19:51:53 2005
From: kat at paip.net (Kat Hanna)
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:51:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [OTR-users] mailing list search?
In-Reply-To: <4394DE0F.8090101@polywog.org>
References: <4394DE0F.8090101@polywog.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0512051944500.1409@marshall.paip.net>

The easiest way by far is to use google with your search terms plus
"site:lists.cypherpunks.ca".

As for your problem, try starting gaim with "gaim -d"; it should see the
plugin and tell you why it doesn't load.

 -Kat

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, Emilio M. Recio wrote:

> is there a way I can do a search the mailing list archives? I compiled
> otr from scratch, both the library, and the gaim-plugin. I am also using
> a compiled version of gaim (1.5). However, even after restarting, the
> plugin doesn't show up on the list of available plugins. I checked and
> otr was installed correctly (in the Plugins directory).
>
> -Elmo
> _______________________________________________
> OTR-users mailing list
> OTR-users at lists.cypherpunks.ca
> http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/mailman/listinfo/otr-users
>


From CLAY at BROKENLADDER.COM  Mon Dec  5 22:51:07 2005
From: CLAY at BROKENLADDER.COM (CLAY SHENTRUP)
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:51:07 -0800
Subject: [OTR-users] Discussion of the use of "his" as a gender-neutral pronoun in an unlikely place
In-Reply-To: <20051205235003.GI4463@smtp.paip.net>
References: <43921820.8000906@brandeis.edu>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.58.0512041946450.10830@marshall.paip.net>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.63.0512051927480.30999@tla.xelerance.com>
	 <20051205185544.GH4463@smtp.paip.net>
	 <9129d8bb0512051433g3fac2daxc3f33f94f9a8b613@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20051205235003.GI4463@smtp.paip.net>
Message-ID: <9129d8bb0512051951i4d8e67edn1199721d5472200@mail.gmail.com>

> > by "end" it, you just mean "go back to allowing plain text", right?
>
> "go back to sending plaintext", but yes.


my experience is that it won't even allow plain text until after i submit to
that.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/pipermail/otr-users/attachments/20051205/0c8e6afe/attachment.html>

From erecio at polywog.org  Tue Dec  6 08:09:26 2005
From: erecio at polywog.org (Emilio Recio)
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:09:26 -0500
Subject: [OTR-users] gaim not loading static plugin, etc.
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0512051944500.1409@marshall.paip.net>
References: <4394DE0F.8090101@polywog.org> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0512051944500.1409@marshall.paip.net>
Message-ID: <43958D86.3070803@polywog.org>

Since i didn't find anything of interest on the mailing lists. I ran 
"gaim -d" and it didn't find the gaim-otr plugin at all. The odd part is 
that when I did a "make uninstall" to recompile the plugin, there was 
only one file. It seems like the static library (gaim-otr.la), but not 
the shared library.

So... I recompiled the plugin with (enable-shared):
./configure --disable-nls --prefix=/usr/local/ --enable-shared

So... I got this:
plugins: /usr/local/lib/gaim/gaim-otr.so is unloadable: libotr.so.2: 
cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

So... I did a search (libotr.so.2):
$ locate libotr.so.2
/usr/local/src/libotr-3.0.0/src/.libs/libotr.so.2.0.0
/usr/local/src/libotr-3.0.0/src/.libs/libotr.so.2
/usr/local/lib/libotr.so.2.0.0
/usr/local/lib/libotr.so.2

So... I ldd'd it:
$ ldd /usr/local/lib/gaim/gaim-otr.so
         linux-gate.so.1 =>  (0x00de6000)
         libgcrypt.so.11 => /usr/lib/libgcrypt.so.11 (0x00c8e000)
         libgpg-error.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgpg-error.so.0 (0x00f0c000)
         libotr.so.2 => not found
         libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x00541000)
         libnsl.so.1 => /lib/libnsl.so.1 (0x006a2000)
         /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x003b3000)

So... I added it (/usr/local/lib) to /etc/ld.so.conf, reran ldconfig.

Thanks for the "gaim -d" tip... but... why is --enable-shared required? 
Shouldn't gaim automagically load the statically linked gaim-otr.la?

Kat Hanna wrote:
> The easiest way by far is to use google with your search terms plus
> "site:lists.cypherpunks.ca".
> 
> As for your problem, try starting gaim with "gaim -d"; it should see the
> plugin and tell you why it doesn't load.


From ian at cypherpunks.ca  Tue Dec  6 08:53:34 2005
From: ian at cypherpunks.ca (Ian Goldberg)
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 08:53:34 -0500
Subject: [OTR-users] Discussion of the use of "his" as a gender-neutral pronoun in an unlikely place
In-Reply-To: <9129d8bb0512051951i4d8e67edn1199721d5472200@mail.gmail.com>
References: <43921820.8000906@brandeis.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0512041946450.10830@marshall.paip.net> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0512051927480.30999@tla.xelerance.com> <20051205185544.GH4463@smtp.paip.net> <9129d8bb0512051433g3fac2daxc3f33f94f9a8b613@mail.gmail.com> <20051205235003.GI4463@smtp.paip.net> <9129d8bb0512051951i4d8e67edn1199721d5472200@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20051206135334.GL4463@smtp.paip.net>

On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 07:51:07PM -0800, CLAY SHENTRUP wrote:
> > > by "end" it, you just mean "go back to allowing plain text", right?
> >
> > "go back to sending plaintext", but yes.
> 
> 
> my experience is that it won't even allow plain text until after i submit to
> that.

What do you mean?  If Alice and Bob are in a private conversation, and
Bob ends his side of it, and then sends a plaintext message to Alice,
Alice will see it, along with a warning telling her that it was received
unprotected.

   - Ian


From ian at cypherpunks.ca  Tue Dec  6 08:59:11 2005
From: ian at cypherpunks.ca (Ian Goldberg)
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 08:59:11 -0500
Subject: [OTR-users] gaim not loading static plugin, etc.
In-Reply-To: <43958D86.3070803@polywog.org>
References: <4394DE0F.8090101@polywog.org> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0512051944500.1409@marshall.paip.net> <43958D86.3070803@polywog.org>
Message-ID: <20051206135911.GM4463@smtp.paip.net>

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 08:09:26AM -0500, Emilio Recio wrote:
> Since i didn't find anything of interest on the mailing lists. I ran 
> "gaim -d" and it didn't find the gaim-otr plugin at all. The odd part is 
> that when I did a "make uninstall" to recompile the plugin, there was 
> only one file. It seems like the static library (gaim-otr.la), but not 
> the shared library.
> 
> So... I recompiled the plugin with (enable-shared):
> ./configure --disable-nls --prefix=/usr/local/ --enable-shared
> 
> So... I got this:
> plugins: /usr/local/lib/gaim/gaim-otr.so is unloadable: libotr.so.2: 
> cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
> 
> So... I did a search (libotr.so.2):
> $ locate libotr.so.2
> /usr/local/src/libotr-3.0.0/src/.libs/libotr.so.2.0.0
> /usr/local/src/libotr-3.0.0/src/.libs/libotr.so.2
> /usr/local/lib/libotr.so.2.0.0
> /usr/local/lib/libotr.so.2
> 
> So... I ldd'd it:
> $ ldd /usr/local/lib/gaim/gaim-otr.so
>         linux-gate.so.1 =>  (0x00de6000)
>         libgcrypt.so.11 => /usr/lib/libgcrypt.so.11 (0x00c8e000)
>         libgpg-error.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgpg-error.so.0 (0x00f0c000)
>         libotr.so.2 => not found
>         libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x00541000)
>         libnsl.so.1 => /lib/libnsl.so.1 (0x006a2000)
>         /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x003b3000)
> 
> So... I added it (/usr/local/lib) to /etc/ld.so.conf, reran ldconfig.
> 
> Thanks for the "gaim -d" tip... but... why is --enable-shared required? 
> Shouldn't gaim automagically load the statically linked gaim-otr.la?

The .la *isn't* the static library.  Static libs end in ".a".  A ".la"
file is just information *about* a shared library (it's a text file;
look at it and see).

I think now that you have /usr/local/lib in your /etc/ld.so.conf,
compiling without an explicit --enable-shared should probably work fine.

   - Ian


From erecio at polywog.org  Tue Dec  6 09:11:44 2005
From: erecio at polywog.org (Emilio Recio)
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:11:44 -0500
Subject: [OTR-users] gaim not loading static plugin, etc.
In-Reply-To: <20051206135911.GM4463@smtp.paip.net>
References: <4394DE0F.8090101@polywog.org> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0512051944500.1409@marshall.paip.net> <43958D86.3070803@polywog.org> <20051206135911.GM4463@smtp.paip.net>
Message-ID: <43959C20.1070604@polywog.org>

Thanks for the information. It's been years since I worked on libraries 
on linux, I assumed it was a new gcc/glibc thing.

Ian Goldberg wrote:
> The .la *isn't* the static library.  Static libs end in ".a".  A ".la"
> file is just information *about* a shared library (it's a text file;
> look at it and see).
> 
> I think now that you have /usr/local/lib in your /etc/ld.so.conf,
> compiling without an explicit --enable-shared should probably work fine.


From CLAY at BROKENLADDER.COM  Tue Dec  6 13:53:36 2005
From: CLAY at BROKENLADDER.COM (CLAY SHENTRUP)
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:53:36 -0800
Subject: [OTR-users] Discussion of the use of "his" as a gender-neutral pronoun in an unlikely place
In-Reply-To: <20051206135334.GL4463@smtp.paip.net>
References: <43921820.8000906@brandeis.edu>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.58.0512041946450.10830@marshall.paip.net>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.63.0512051927480.30999@tla.xelerance.com>
	 <20051205185544.GH4463@smtp.paip.net>
	 <9129d8bb0512051433g3fac2daxc3f33f94f9a8b613@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20051205235003.GI4463@smtp.paip.net>
	 <9129d8bb0512051951i4d8e67edn1199721d5472200@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20051206135334.GL4463@smtp.paip.net>
Message-ID: <9129d8bb0512061053n33daf03hdfbd2a0e4b30b16e@mail.gmail.com>

but if alice hasn't ended her session yet, and tries to send something to
bob, it will refuse to send it until she's ended her side as well.  did i
get some abberant version of otr?

clay

On 12/6/05, Ian Goldberg <ian at cypherpunks.ca> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 07:51:07PM -0800, CLAY SHENTRUP wrote:
> > > > by "end" it, you just mean "go back to allowing plain text", right?
> > >
> > > "go back to sending plaintext", but yes.
> >
> >
> > my experience is that it won't even allow plain text until after i
> submit to
> > that.
>
> What do you mean?  If Alice and Bob are in a private conversation, and
> Bob ends his side of it, and then sends a plaintext message to Alice,
> Alice will see it, along with a warning telling her that it was received
> unprotected.
>
>    - Ian
> _______________________________________________
> OTR-users mailing list
> OTR-users at lists.cypherpunks.ca
> http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/mailman/listinfo/otr-users
>



--
THE LAST PERSON TO DIE BY FIRING SQUAD IN THE
US WAS JOHN ALBERT TAYLOR, IN UTAH IN 1996.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/pipermail/otr-users/attachments/20051206/f120f35e/attachment.html>

From ian at cypherpunks.ca  Tue Dec  6 16:55:18 2005
From: ian at cypherpunks.ca (Ian Goldberg)
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 16:55:18 -0500
Subject: [OTR-users] Discussion of the use of "his" as a gender-neutral pronoun in an unlikely place
In-Reply-To: <9129d8bb0512061053n33daf03hdfbd2a0e4b30b16e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <43921820.8000906@brandeis.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0512041946450.10830@marshall.paip.net> <Pine.LNX.4.63.0512051927480.30999@tla.xelerance.com> <20051205185544.GH4463@smtp.paip.net> <9129d8bb0512051433g3fac2daxc3f33f94f9a8b613@mail.gmail.com> <20051205235003.GI4463@smtp.paip.net> <9129d8bb0512051951i4d8e67edn1199721d5472200@mail.gmail.com> <20051206135334.GL4463@smtp.paip.net> <9129d8bb0512061053n33daf03hdfbd2a0e4b30b16e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20051206215518.GO4463@smtp.paip.net>

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 10:53:36AM -0800, CLAY SHENTRUP wrote:
> but if alice hasn't ended her session yet, and tries to send something to
> bob, it will refuse to send it until she's ended her side as well.  did i
> get some abberant version of otr?

No, that's right; that's what I said.  Once Bob ends his side of the
session, Alice can receive plaintext from him, but not send it, until
she ends her side as well.

   - Ian


From douglas.c.robinson at gmail.com  Wed Dec  7 12:55:59 2005
From: douglas.c.robinson at gmail.com (Douglas C. Robinson)
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 12:55:59 -0500
Subject: [OTR-users] Knoppix with GAIM-OTR
Message-ID: <8de316b10512070955p367a59ddk3255710f7b64275e@mail.gmail.com>

I've Googled this already with no success, but is anyone aware of a
Knoppix-like distro that has the full GAIM with GAIM-OTR plugin?  This
seems to me to be a wonderful combination for cyber-cafe use....

Thanks,

Robi



From jonkress at gmail.com  Fri Dec  9 13:38:57 2005
From: jonkress at gmail.com (Jon Kress)
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 13:38:57 -0500
Subject: [OTR-users] remove
In-Reply-To: <20051209153846.GS4463@smtp.paip.net>
References: <20051209153846.GS4463@smtp.paip.net>
Message-ID: <4399CF41.6020007@gmail.com>

Ian Goldberg wrote:

>The updated version of otrproxy for OSX, including support for the v2
>protocol, and a fix to support non-ASCII charsets, is now available.
>
>http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/binaries/osx/otrproxy-0.3.1.dmg
>
>   - Ian
>_______________________________________________
>OTR-announce mailing list
>OTR-announce at lists.cypherpunks.ca
>http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/mailman/listinfo/otr-announce
>
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 2781 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/pipermail/otr-users/attachments/20051209/de60e51f/attachment.bin>

From secanon at m-net.arbornet.org  Wed Dec  7 19:22:50 2005
From: secanon at m-net.arbornet.org (Anonymous)
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:22:50 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [OTR-users] OTR Weakness
Message-ID: <200512080022.jB80Mofx090779@m-net.arbornet.org>

Correct me if I'm wrong, and it is very possible that I am, but isn't D-H vulnerable to brute-force attacks in the same manner as RSA attacks?  If indeed that is true, perhaps it would be wise to increase the bitlength of the keys that otr uses, as currently, it is very-nearly in reach of easily-crackable by people with super-computers.  

On a seperate note, DSA has been compromised in the current way that it is created: that is, using SHA1-160 on both ends.  I recommend an immediate upgrade to either TIGER (recommended) or SHA2-512.  

Sincerely,
Anonymous


From ian at cypherpunks.ca  Sat Dec 10 18:42:36 2005
From: ian at cypherpunks.ca (Ian Goldberg)
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:42:36 -0500
Subject: [OTR-users] OTR Weakness
In-Reply-To: <200512080022.jB80Mofx090779@m-net.arbornet.org>
References: <200512080022.jB80Mofx090779@m-net.arbornet.org>
Message-ID: <20051210234236.GG4463@smtp.paip.net>

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 07:22:50PM -0500, Anonymous wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, and it is very possible that I am, but isn't
> D-H vulnerable to brute-force attacks in the same manner as RSA
> attacks?  If indeed that is true, perhaps it would be wise to increase
> the bitlength of the keys that otr uses, as currently, it is
> very-nearly in reach of easily-crackable by people with
> super-computers.  

I disagree that 1536-bit DH is "very nealy in reach of easily
crackable".  Do you have data to back this up?  [The attacks to be
concerned about aren't brute-force attacks; those clearly are out of
reach.]

> On a seperate note, DSA has been compromised in the current way that
> it is created: that is, using SHA1-160 on both ends.  I recommend an
> immediate upgrade to either TIGER (recommended) or SHA2-512.  

Do you have a pointer to this?  Collisions in SHA1 shouldn't affect
DSA.  We have in fact started migrating over to SHA-256, but some things
(like fingerprints) can't change without losing compatibility.

   - Ian


From mhkhung at gmail.com  Sat Dec 10 19:31:24 2005
From: mhkhung at gmail.com (Michael Hung)
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 00:31:24 +0000 GMT
Subject: [OTR-users] OTR Weakness
Message-ID: <1925219337-1134261080-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-13413-@engine07>

I might be wrong but I don't think the standard dsa supports sha256. Rsa works fine of course..

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Goldberg <ian at cypherpunks.ca>
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:42:36 
To:otr-users at lists.cypherpunks.ca
Subject: Re: [OTR-users] OTR Weakness

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 07:22:50PM -0500, Anonymous wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, and it is very possible that I am, but isn't
> D-H vulnerable to brute-force attacks in the same manner as RSA
> attacks?  If indeed that is true, perhaps it would be wise to increase
> the bitlength of the keys that otr uses, as currently, it is
> very-nearly in reach of easily-crackable by people with
> super-computers.  

I disagree that 1536-bit DH is "very nealy in reach of easily
crackable".  Do you have data to back this up?  [The attacks to be
concerned about aren't brute-force attacks; those clearly are out of
reach.]

> On a seperate note, DSA has been compromised in the current way that
> it is created: that is, using SHA1-160 on both ends.  I recommend an
> immediate upgrade to either TIGER (recommended) or SHA2-512.  

Do you have a pointer to this?  Collisions in SHA1 shouldn't affect
DSA.  We have in fact started migrating over to SHA-256, but some things
(like fingerprints) can't change without losing compatibility.

   - Ian
_______________________________________________
OTR-users mailing list
OTR-users at lists.cypherpunks.ca
http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/mailman/listinfo/otr-users


From tirali at dmreklam.com  Sat Dec 10 21:10:47 2005
From: tirali at dmreklam.com (tirali at dmreklam.com)
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 04:10:47 +0200
Subject: [OTR-users] otr key problem
Message-ID: <8E089A182D0144ADB76C003676C83EE3.MAI@areshosting.com>

i am using gaim v1.5.0 and the latest otr release .. the problem i am facing is that i was able to
use otr from a different machine and now i cannot generate keys.. it says generating ... and then
says OK. but there are no Keys. when i attempt to make a private conversation it automatically
tries to generate a key says OK and then with every message it again tries to generate a key and
says OK but actually fails. Is there a workaround for this ? i uninstalled otr and reinstalled it
but no luck.


From ian at cypherpunks.ca  Sat Dec 10 21:53:38 2005
From: ian at cypherpunks.ca (Ian Goldberg)
Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 21:53:38 -0500
Subject: [OTR-users] otr key problem
In-Reply-To: <8E089A182D0144ADB76C003676C83EE3.MAI@areshosting.com>
References: <8E089A182D0144ADB76C003676C83EE3.MAI@areshosting.com>
Message-ID: <20051211025338.GH4463@smtp.paip.net>

On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 04:10:47AM +0200, tirali at dmreklam.com wrote:
> i am using gaim v1.5.0 and the latest otr release .. the problem i am
> facing is that i was able to use otr from a different machine and now
> i cannot generate keys.. it says generating ... and then says OK. but
> there are no Keys. when i attempt to make a private conversation it
> automatically tries to generate a key says OK and then with every
> message it again tries to generate a key and says OK but actually
> fails. Is there a workaround for this ? i uninstalled otr and
> reinstalled it but no luck.

It sounds like you don't have the right permissions to save the private
keys file for some reason.

What OS is this?  If it's *nix, what does "ls -al ~/.gaim" say?
If it's Windows, I'm not sure what the equivalent thing is.

   - Ian


From CLAY at BROKENLADDER.COM  Fri Dec 16 14:21:47 2005
From: CLAY at BROKENLADDER.COM (CLAY SHENTRUP)
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:21:47 -0800
Subject: [OTR-users] jabber jingle
Message-ID: <9129d8bb0512161121p64da64f0ic60ca9d070d36fe5@mail.gmail.com>

Well, after all the evangelism I've done in support of SIP for IP telephony,
it turns out that Google has backed open extensions to XMPP (Jabber) to
enabled voip.  Not only is this essentially what's already used in Google
Talk (which will eventually be totally open and compatible with other Jabber
networks), it's simple to implement (much simpler than SIP) and better with
firewalls.

Gaim 2 is supposed to support Jingle eventually, using none other than
libjingle.  I think it would be awesome to see the fundamentals of OTR
applied to this in some way that is suitable for voice.  Is this anything
any of the developers think would be interesting?

My opinion is that with Google backing it, and with its open nature, Jingle
looks like it's going to be the eventual de facto standard for VoIP.  Maybe
that's premature, but it makes a lot of sense.  Gaim 2 is supposed to be
wicked.  OTR supplemented VoIP would be even more wicked.

Thanks,
Clay

--
Here's an idea that would save the world:  I think, we should get some large
magnetic rings and attach wires to them such that one wire is attached to
each of a set of two magnetic rings in opposing polarity. Then, we should
dig up everyone that was a great thinker of the enlightenment and dip them
in molten iron. After that, following Maxwell's famous equations, we'll just
tell that girl and all the other stupids that we prayed for it to happen and
jebus made it work, we'll put all of our iron covered thinkers of the
enlightenment back in their graves inside the magnetic rings. Once there,
the combined speed with which they turn will be enough to ween us off fossil
fuels.

?NATE OBORNY, TALKING ABOUT A GIRL WHO DOESN'T BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/pipermail/otr-users/attachments/20051216/1b7b520b/attachment.html>

From gmaxwell at gmail.com  Fri Dec 16 16:38:04 2005
From: gmaxwell at gmail.com (Gregory Maxwell)
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:38:04 -0500
Subject: [OTR-users] jabber jingle
In-Reply-To: <9129d8bb0512161121p64da64f0ic60ca9d070d36fe5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9129d8bb0512161121p64da64f0ic60ca9d070d36fe5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e692861c0512161338x70e9a857uccc579060e813b50@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/16/05, CLAY SHENTRUP <CLAY at brokenladder.com> wrote:
> Well, after all the evangelism I've done in support of SIP for IP telephony,
> it turns out that Google has backed open extensions to XMPP (Jabber) to
> enabled voip.  Not only is this essentially what's already used in Google
> Talk (which will eventually be totally open and compatible with other Jabber
> networks), it's simple to implement (much simpler than SIP) and better with
> firewalls.
>
> Gaim 2 is supposed to support Jingle eventually, using none other than
> libjingle.  I think it would be awesome to see the fundamentals of OTR
> applied to this in some way that is suitable for voice.  Is this anything
> any of the developers think would be interesting?
>
> My opinion is that with Google backing it, and with its open nature, Jingle
> looks like it's going to be the eventual de facto standard for VoIP.  Maybe
> that's premature, but it makes a lot of sense.  Gaim 2 is supposed to be
> wicked.  OTR supplemented VoIP would be even more wicked.

I think cryptography for voice is essential. Unfortunate the reality
of things is such that we really can't provide the same cryptographic
behavior in regard to repudiation with voice that we can provide with
IM.

It would not be much work to use an OTR protected channel to exchange
a session key for voice, but care must be taken to ensure that the
session key does not reduce the repudiation for the voice call.

Lobbying should be done with google *now* to make sure the right
support is in place in the majority of the clients for encrypted
voice.



From CLAY at BROKENLADDER.COM  Sat Dec 17 03:30:53 2005
From: CLAY at BROKENLADDER.COM (CLAY SHENTRUP)
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 00:30:53 -0800
Subject: [OTR-users] jabber jingle
In-Reply-To: <e692861c0512170026m366d3e67p4154083a8fd2ccbb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9129d8bb0512161121p64da64f0ic60ca9d070d36fe5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <e692861c0512161338x70e9a857uccc579060e813b50@mail.gmail.com>
	 <9129d8bb0512161343n139b81a4v1ef1b9ea86308f4b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <e692861c0512170002u20c9e295nd86de5ad4343444d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <9129d8bb0512170004w4ae4e9cbv8d0459b0445f10b4@mail.gmail.com>
	 <e692861c0512170026m366d3e67p4154083a8fd2ccbb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9129d8bb0512170030r7fcd6e68h4cab20a9620ff86@mail.gmail.com>

I don't think this makes sense, but I'm too exhausted right now to have a
clear mind and analyze it.  Ian?  Anyone?

-Clay

On 12/17/05, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/17/05, CLAY SHENTRUP <CLAY at brokenladder.com> wrote:
> > dude, the recording of the call would be stronger proof than any keys
> would
> > be.  it would be easier to steal his private keys and impersonate him
> than
> > fake his voice.
>
> Alice (the secret police) can only record the encrypted call. She
> knows the Bob sent some bytes but can't prove what they mean.  Alice
> doesn't trust trent completely... which is why she doesn't just take
> his word for it when he says bob was planning on overthrowing the
> government.
>
> With OTR on text,  trent can give alice a decrypted copy of a message
> and the session key used to encrypt that message... and Alice, even
> though she has a recording of the encrypted data , can't be completely
> sure that Trent isn't framing Bob. ... this is because there is a high
> ratio of key data to transmitted messages (because there is an eDH
> exchange every message pair).  Trent could have just searched for
> session keys that caused bob's messages to decrypt to his choice of
> text. Because the session key is a key to an AES stream cipher (and
> not a onetime pad) this would require non trivial effort from trent,
> but if the messages are short this stays within the realm of doubt.
>
> The same protection isn't available for voice.
>



--
Here's an idea that would save the world:  I think, we should get some large
magnetic rings and attach wires to them such that one wire is attached to
each of a set of two magnetic rings in opposing polarity. Then, we should
dig up everyone that was a great thinker of the enlightenment and dip them
in molten iron. After that, following Maxwell's famous equations, we'll just
tell that girl and all the other stupids that we prayed for it to happen and
jebus made it work, we'll put all of our iron covered thinkers of the
enlightenment back in their graves inside the magnetic rings. Once there,
the combined speed with which they turn will be enough to ween us off fossil
fuels.

?NATE OBORNY, TALKING ABOUT A GIRL WHO DOESN'T BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/pipermail/otr-users/attachments/20051217/1e42342c/attachment.html>

From CLAY at BROKENLADDER.COM  Sat Dec 17 05:51:58 2005
From: CLAY at BROKENLADDER.COM (CLAY SHENTRUP)
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 02:51:58 -0800
Subject: [OTR-users] jabber jingle
In-Reply-To: <9129d8bb0512170102u78a1e63bp80259d2ae5280f2f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9129d8bb0512161121p64da64f0ic60ca9d070d36fe5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <e692861c0512161338x70e9a857uccc579060e813b50@mail.gmail.com>
	 <9129d8bb0512161343n139b81a4v1ef1b9ea86308f4b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <e692861c0512170002u20c9e295nd86de5ad4343444d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <9129d8bb0512170102u78a1e63bp80259d2ae5280f2f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9129d8bb0512170251m6011ee64i9c8a4021d0a64a62@mail.gmail.com>

> Lets assume Bob is communicates with Trent.  Alice is an evil
>
oppressive government to records all communications.  Trent later
> becomes a traitor and turns over his his session keys to Alice.  There
> is no way that alice can directly prove that the session key was the
> one bob agreed to, however the session key successfully converts the
> data alice captured into something that sounds  a lot like bob.  The
> probability of Trent finding some key which decrypts to something that
> sounds like bob talking about something other than what he actually
> said is infinitesimal


Okay, you're throwing me with your misuse of Alice here.  But if Alice
indeed observed all of the communication, even if it was text, then they
would see the encrypted messages coming from Bob, as well as his signed DH
half key.  If Trent could produce a private DH value that in conjunction
with Bob's public key would produce a key that Trent has, which would
decrypt the recorded message to something recognizable, then I think that
would give Alice (or Mr. Charrington if you like) the means to know prove
that Bob said what he said.  I think the plausible deniability is only if
you weren't observed in the act.

In the limit, your example relies upon recognizing Bob's voice, which would
give the same certainty that it was Bob, even if the message was never
ecrypted.  So what does OTR have to do with that?


--
Here's an idea that would save the world:  I think, we should get some large
magnetic rings and attach wires to them such that one wire is attached to
each of a set of two magnetic rings in opposing polarity. Then, we should
dig up everyone that was a great thinker of the enlightenment and dip them
in molten iron. After that, following Maxwell's famous equations, we'll just
tell that girl and all the other stupids that we prayed for it to happen and
jebus made it work, we'll put all of our iron covered thinkers of the
enlightenment back in their graves inside the magnetic rings. Once there,
the combined speed with which they turn will be enough to ween us off fossil
fuels.

?NATE OBORNY, TALKING ABOUT A GIRL WHO DOESN'T BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/pipermail/otr-users/attachments/20051217/22bc0e6a/attachment.html>

From shane at shaneland.co.uk  Sat Dec 17 12:41:35 2005
From: shane at shaneland.co.uk (Shane M. Coughlan)
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:41:35 +0000
Subject: [OTR-users] Making a distribution of Gaim with OTR preinstalled
In-Reply-To: <e692861c0512161338x70e9a857uccc579060e813b50@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9129d8bb0512161121p64da64f0ic60ca9d070d36fe5@mail.gmail.com> <e692861c0512161338x70e9a857uccc579060e813b50@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <43A44DCF.1010604@shaneland.co.uk>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Hello OTR people!

My name is Shane Coughlan, and I am a member of the Mobility Project.
We're interested in bringing mobility and security closer together.

We're working on a portable version of Gaim with OTR plugin
preinstalled.  It's a distribution designed to help people take their IM
client with them on a USB stick.  It's called Mobility IM distribution,
and we have a beta online at http://mobility.shaneland.co.uk (early days
yet).

We're busy creating systems for verifying files and encrypting profiles
(using a combination of file hashing technology and symmetric encryption
from GnuPG), though that's not going to be ready for some months.

Now, an issue we've noticed during our OTR test conversations is that
long messages passing through Yahoo! (and possibly other networks)
sometimes generate a loop.  Gaim complains its a badly formed message,
and it attempts (infinite loop) to resend the message.  It's a little
annoying, and does not occur when OTR is not enabled.

Is there any way to stop this?  In addition, are there any notices or
documentation that we should include with our distribution to make it
better for the public at large?

Thanks for making OTR.  It's a wonderful concept.

Best regards

Shane
http://mobility.shaneland.co.uk

I'm also a member of:
Enigmail OpenPGP for Thunderbird http://enigmail.mozdev.org
WinPT: http://www.winpt.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3-cvs-3966 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFDpE3PTa6KuhPvdOoRA1RCAKCgF4ieGzMamfHmXPWdyBEppNLQ5ACghMJK
2vKjoAZwC3VBOgYK7FYppyM=
=2jZ6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From ian at cypherpunks.ca  Sat Dec 17 13:04:07 2005
From: ian at cypherpunks.ca (Ian Goldberg)
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:04:07 -0500
Subject: [OTR-users] Making a distribution of Gaim with OTR preinstalled
In-Reply-To: <43A44DCF.1010604@shaneland.co.uk>
References: <9129d8bb0512161121p64da64f0ic60ca9d070d36fe5@mail.gmail.com> <e692861c0512161338x70e9a857uccc579060e813b50@mail.gmail.com> <43A44DCF.1010604@shaneland.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20051217180406.GL4463@smtp.paip.net>

On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 05:41:35PM +0000, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
> Now, an issue we've noticed during our OTR test conversations is that
> long messages passing through Yahoo! (and possibly other networks)
> sometimes generate a loop.  Gaim complains its a badly formed message,
> and it attempts (infinite loop) to resend the message.  It's a little
> annoying, and does not occur when OTR is not enabled.

The "right" way to solve this is with fragmentation.  gaim-otr-3.0.0
included support for assembling fragments, but not for generating them.

There are two hard parts of fragmenting long messages:

1. How do you know what size of fragment to use?
2. Some networks have a rate-limiter that trips when you try to send
   messages (i.e. fragments) too quickly.

The only plausible solution to #1 is icky (hard-code maximum sizes for
each known network, ugh).  The IM networks simply don't in general provide
enough information to determine the maximum size at runtime.

#2 is really a bug in gaim: it's already got code that's supposed to
automatically throttle outgoing messages, based on the networks'
reported rate limits, but, last I checked, it didn't work.  Maybe the
new gaim-2 has fixed it, though.

It's definitely something we're keeping in mind, though.  This is
discussed from time to time on the otr-dev list.

   - Ian


From eyv at cs.umn.edu  Sun Dec 18 15:37:06 2005
From: eyv at cs.umn.edu (Eugene Y. Vasserman)
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:37:06 -0600
Subject: [OTR-users] Gaim2 and OTR3
In-Reply-To: <20051218114527.7897.82515.Mailman@brandeis.paip.net>
References: <20051218114527.7897.82515.Mailman@brandeis.paip.net>
Message-ID: <43A5C872.8080306@cs.umn.edu>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Hi All,
So, the Gaim2 beta seems to be out. Would be nice to see a compatible
OTR3. Then I can make a clean break from Gaim 1. :)
Thanks very much for all your great work,
Eugene

- --
Eugene Y. Vasserman
http://www.cs.umn.edu/~eyv/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDpchy4S3hfPlRZlkRA91VAJ4hmIEWO9YP0VgvzEH0q/0z8EC8VACfVDg3
E/bX+5rmJ+ugZRDe/1UWvKM=
=vX4c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From ian at cypherpunks.ca  Sun Dec 18 17:54:15 2005
From: ian at cypherpunks.ca (Ian Goldberg)
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:54:15 -0500
Subject: [OTR-users] Gaim2 and OTR3
In-Reply-To: <43A5C872.8080306@cs.umn.edu>
References: <20051218114527.7897.82515.Mailman@brandeis.paip.net> <43A5C872.8080306@cs.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <20051218225415.GP4463@smtp.paip.net>

On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 02:37:06PM -0600, Eugene Y. Vasserman wrote:
> Hi All,
> So, the Gaim2 beta seems to be out. Would be nice to see a compatible
> OTR3. Then I can make a clean break from Gaim 1. :)
> Thanks very much for all your great work,
> Eugene

I just checked in a patch (based on the one Dustin sent in) to make
gaim-otr work with gaim2.  When I checked earlier today, though, there
wasn't a win32 build of gaim2 yet, so I can't build a win32 version of
the plugin.

   - Ian


From CLAY at BROKENLADDER.COM  Sun Dec 18 20:01:19 2005
From: CLAY at BROKENLADDER.COM (CLAY SHENTRUP)
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:01:19 -0800
Subject: [OTR-users] Gaim2 and OTR3
In-Reply-To: <20051218225415.GP4463@smtp.paip.net>
References: <20051218114527.7897.82515.Mailman@brandeis.paip.net>
	 <43A5C872.8080306@cs.umn.edu> <20051218225415.GP4463@smtp.paip.net>
Message-ID: <9129d8bb0512181701w651195c5l78b2d068ce0279a2@mail.gmail.com>

Ian:

I think I speak for the entire community when I say, you're a pimp.

On 12/18/05, Ian Goldberg <ian at cypherpunks.ca> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 02:37:06PM -0600, Eugene Y. Vasserman wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > So, the Gaim2 beta seems to be out. Would be nice to see a compatible
> > OTR3. Then I can make a clean break from Gaim 1. :)
> > Thanks very much for all your great work,
> > Eugene
>
> I just checked in a patch (based on the one Dustin sent in) to make
> gaim-otr work with gaim2.  When I checked earlier today, though, there
> wasn't a win32 build of gaim2 yet, so I can't build a win32 version of
> the plugin.
>
>    - Ian
> _______________________________________________
> OTR-users mailing list
> OTR-users at lists.cypherpunks.ca
> http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/mailman/listinfo/otr-users
>



--
Here's an idea that would save the world:  I think, we should get some large
magnetic rings and attach wires to them such that one wire is attached to
each of a set of two magnetic rings in opposing polarity. Then, we should
dig up everyone that was a great thinker of the enlightenment and dip them
in molten iron. After that, following Maxwell's famous equations, we'll just
tell that girl and all the other stupids that we prayed for it to happen and
jebus made it work, we'll put all of our iron covered thinkers of the
enlightenment back in their graves inside the magnetic rings. Once there,
the combined speed with which they turn will be enough to ween us off fossil
fuels.

?NATE OBORNY, TALKING ABOUT A GIRL WHO DOESN'T BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/pipermail/otr-users/attachments/20051218/8096b461/attachment.html>

From eyv at cs.umn.edu  Mon Dec 19 14:59:27 2005
From: eyv at cs.umn.edu (Eugene Y. Vasserman)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:59:27 -0600
Subject: [OTR-users] Gaim2 and OTR3
In-Reply-To: <20051219114335.26905.65079.Mailman@brandeis.paip.net>
References: <20051219114335.26905.65079.Mailman@brandeis.paip.net>
Message-ID: <43A7111F.4030007@cs.umn.edu>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

I'm running the Windows build now. :)
If you need testers, I'd be happy to test the Windows side.
Thanks,
Eugene

On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 02:37:06PM -0600, Eugene Y. Vasserman wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> So, the Gaim2 beta seems to be out. Would be nice to see a compatible
>> OTR3. Then I can make a clean break from Gaim 1. :)
>> Thanks very much for all your great work,
>> Eugene

> I just checked in a patch (based on the one Dustin sent in) to make
> gaim-otr work with gaim2.  When I checked earlier today, though, there
> wasn't a win32 build of gaim2 yet, so I can't build a win32 version of
> the plugin.
> 
>    - Ian

- --
Eugene Y. Vasserman
http://www.cs.umn.edu/~eyv/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDpxEf4S3hfPlRZlkRA27OAJ9Wl7tvSMIHYAn59ehCLjkg7vwzZwCePoJI
0KV9hgko8pSBN70W3bJX6rQ=
=fbtX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From dguido at gmail.com  Tue Dec 20 15:29:04 2005
From: dguido at gmail.com (Daniel Guido)
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:29:04 -0500
Subject: [OTR-users] Re: OTR-users digest, Vol 1 #138 - 1 msg
In-Reply-To: <20051220113130.13077.64551.Mailman@brandeis.paip.net>
References: <20051220113130.13077.64551.Mailman@brandeis.paip.net>
Message-ID: <9c2204930512201229p346beb76i7c34b38a80c0d3e2@mail.gmail.com>

Windows builds are available here: http://geddeth.dk/downloads/gaim/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/pipermail/otr-users/attachments/20051220/ceafda3a/attachment.html>

From ian at cypherpunks.ca  Tue Dec 20 15:39:53 2005
From: ian at cypherpunks.ca (Ian Goldberg)
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:39:53 -0500
Subject: [OTR-users] Re: OTR-users digest, Vol 1 #138 - 1 msg
In-Reply-To: <9c2204930512201229p346beb76i7c34b38a80c0d3e2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20051220113130.13077.64551.Mailman@brandeis.paip.net> <9c2204930512201229p346beb76i7c34b38a80c0d3e2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20051220203953.GX4463@smtp.paip.net>

On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 03:29:04PM -0500, Daniel Guido wrote:
> Windows builds are available here: http://geddeth.dk/downloads/gaim/

I've sent a version of gaim-otr.dll for gaim-2.x to Paul for packaging.
We should have a version for people to try out soon.

Thanks,

   - Ian


From ian at cypherpunks.ca  Wed Dec 21 16:11:29 2005
From: ian at cypherpunks.ca (Ian Goldberg)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:11:29 -0500
Subject: [OTR-users] Gaim2 and OTR3
In-Reply-To: <43A7111F.4030007@cs.umn.edu>
References: <20051219114335.26905.65079.Mailman@brandeis.paip.net> <43A7111F.4030007@cs.umn.edu>
Message-ID: <20051221211129.GE4463@smtp.paip.net>

On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 01:59:27PM -0600, Eugene Y. Vasserman wrote:
> I'm running the Windows build now. :)
> If you need testers, I'd be happy to test the Windows side.

OK, Paul's packaged up a win32 version of gaim2-otr:

http://otr.cypherpunks.ca/binaries/windows/gaim2-otr-3.0.0.exe

Try it out, and let us know what's up.

Thanks,

   - Ian


From firefox-gen at walala.org  Thu Dec 22 23:52:05 2005
From: firefox-gen at walala.org (A. Bourdon)
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:52:05 -0500
Subject: [OTR-users] Glib 2.0+ compile error w/ OTR 3.0
Message-ID: <20051222235205.v1pkveuddlw00oc4@www.libertarianactivism.com>

Hi all. I'm new to the mailing list here (obviously). I've been using OTR for
GAIM on Win32 for a while now with no problems- very good programming! However,
I just tried compiling the latest 3.0 verion for Linux (SuSE 10.0 Pro in my
case) and have run into a small but aparently critical problem. All libraries
appear to be installed, and my Glib version is 2.8.1-3.i586, higher than the >=
2.4 version required by the configure script. Even so, I get the following error
output:

checking for libgcrypt-config... /usr/local/bin/libgcrypt-config
checking for LIBGCRYPT - version >= 1.2.0... yes
checking LIBGCRYPT API version... okay
checking for libotr CFLAGS...
checking for libotr LIBS...  -lotr
checking for libotr headers version 3.x >= 3.0.0... found.
checking for otrl_message_receiving in -lotr... yes
checking for pkg-config... /usr/bin/pkg-config
checking for glib-2.0 >= 2.4 gtk+-2.0 >= 2.4 gaim >= 1.0... configure: error:
glib
./configure: line 19502: exit: gtk: numeric argument required
./configure: line 19502: exit: gtk: numeric argument required

Any ideas? I've never seen this specific error with any other software I've ever
compiled...

Thanks,
Andrew



From kat at paip.net  Fri Dec 23 00:03:52 2005
From: kat at paip.net (Kat Hanna)
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:03:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [OTR-users] Glib 2.0+ compile error w/ OTR 3.0
In-Reply-To: <20051222235205.v1pkveuddlw00oc4@www.libertarianactivism.com>
References: <20051222235205.v1pkveuddlw00oc4@www.libertarianactivism.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0512222358420.1413@marshall.paip.net>

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, A. Bourdon wrote:

> Hi all. I'm new to the mailing list here (obviously). I've been using OTR for
> GAIM on Win32 for a while now with no problems- very good programming! However,
> I just tried compiling the latest 3.0 verion for Linux (SuSE 10.0 Pro in my
> case) and have run into a small but aparently critical problem. All libraries
> appear to be installed, and my Glib version is 2.8.1-3.i586, higher than the >=
> 2.4 version required by the configure script. Even so, I get the following error
> output:
>
> checking for libgcrypt-config... /usr/local/bin/libgcrypt-config
> checking for LIBGCRYPT - version >= 1.2.0... yes
> checking LIBGCRYPT API version... okay
> checking for libotr CFLAGS...
> checking for libotr LIBS...  -lotr
> checking for libotr headers version 3.x >= 3.0.0... found.
> checking for otrl_message_receiving in -lotr... yes
> checking for pkg-config... /usr/bin/pkg-config
> checking for glib-2.0 >= 2.4 gtk+-2.0 >= 2.4 gaim >= 1.0... configure: error:
> glib
> ./configure: line 19502: exit: gtk: numeric argument required
> ./configure: line 19502: exit: gtk: numeric argument required

Can you post line 19502?

Do you have -devel packages for glib and gtk installed?

Thanks.

 -Kat


From CLAY at BROKENLADDER.COM  Wed Dec 28 16:30:07 2005
From: CLAY at BROKENLADDER.COM (CLAY SHENTRUP)
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:30:07 -0800
Subject: [OTR-users] JEP-0116
Message-ID: <9129d8bb0512281330y8f8c6b1s779a96e1a12277c7@mail.gmail.com>

I was wondering whether Ian or anyone else could be convinced to implement
XMPP extension JEP-0116 <http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0116.html> in Gaim,
an OTR-like encryption scheme at the protocol level for Jabber.  I think
applicability to Jingle would also be quite important, for voice
transactions.  I'm willing to donate 200$ to anyone who will do this, and
hopefully others will find it valuable and help as well.

I haven't read through the spec thoroughly, so I'm only assuming it handles
hurdles previously crossed by OTR (like the false identity exploit).

I understand you're aware of these extension, Ian, and I wondered whether
you have any thoughts about this.  OTR is a great system, but is sort of a
hack, using white spacing and such to work with a range of protocols.
Something that would work at the protocol level, as well as address voice,
would be quite desirable.

Thanks,
Clay

--
Here's an idea that would save the world:  I think, we should get some large
magnetic rings and attach wires to them such that one wire is attached to
each of a set of two magnetic rings in opposing polarity. Then, we should
dig up everyone that was a great thinker of the enlightenment and dip them
in molten iron. After that, following Maxwell's famous equations, we'll just
tell that girl and all the other stupids that we prayed for it to happen and
jebus made it work, we'll put all of our iron covered thinkers of the
enlightenment back in their graves inside the magnetic rings. Once there,
the combined speed with which they turn will be enough to ween us off fossil
fuels.

?NATE OBORNY, TALKING ABOUT A GIRL WHO DOESN'T BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cypherpunks.ca/pipermail/otr-users/attachments/20051228/df43315c/attachment.html>