[OTR-dev] 4.0.0-rc3 ready to roll. Please try it out!

[Ian Goldberg]

On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 11:55:33AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
> Ian Goldberg <ian at cypherpunks.ca> writes:
> 
> > This looks a lot like one of you is logged in more than once.  Could
> > this possibly be the case?  (If the other person is using Adium, you'd
> > have fallen back to the OTRv2 protocol, so you don't get the protection
> > from multiple logins that the new protocol added.)
> 
> That could have been true, but I've been doing otr (v2 obviously) with
> this person for years, and not having trouble.
> 
> I just picked someone else, and tried to initiate.   That person shows
> (in pidgin) as being logged in only once.  I got
> 
> (11:52:08) Error setting up private conversation: Malformed message received
> 
> same as before.   It would be nice to print out the malformed message,
> but I don't know how (other than reading the source and changing the
> code).

Weird.  I believe if you run "pidgin -d", it will show all of the Jabber
messages it's sending and receiving.  Give that a try?

> >> Also, in the pidgin chat window, i have multiple tabs.  Two people don't
> >> do OTR, and that otr tab has 'start', other things greyed, a separator,
> >> their jid, and 'not private'.  That's all fine.  The other person has
> >> done OTR (johndoe@ above), and is set to 'no otr', and looks the same -
> >> but has the most recently looked at of the other parties' JID!!!  It
> >> seems that it's enough to select the tab and come back, and that changes
> >> the JID in the OTR menu for the otr-troubled contact.
> >
> > I'll need to look into this.  Is it replicatable on your end?
> 
> It seems to be, at least with this person. setting otr to 'use default'
> fixes the problem.  unchecking 'use default' and then unchecking
> 'enable' makes the OTR menu go away.  But then selecting someone else's
> tab and then coming back makes the OTR menu re-appear, with the wrong
> jid.

Yup, I've replicated it here, too, and I see the problem in the source.
It shouldn't be too tough to fix, but I'm thinking Target: 4.0.1 for
that one.  Would the various packagers prefer a last-last-minute change
to 4.0.0, or just to put this fix into the next version?

Thanks,

   - Ian