[OTR-users] [otr-users] Communication with Pidgin to Miranda (or others) has encoding problemes

[Scott Ellis]

I've spoken about this at length a long while back.
At present there is another plugin for miranda called 'NoHtml' to help with
the problem.

2009/2/24 Paul Aurich <paul at aurich.com>

> And Rüdiger Kuhlmann spake on 02/23/2009 12:26 PM, saying:
> > That may be true, but the README[1] specifically says that the text to be
> > encrypted is what ever format the protocol specified (there is no
> "convert
> > to XMPP-IM format" or anything like that),
>
> Could you point out where the README says that? I can't seem to find it.
>
> > and since XMPP quite clearly
> > specifies that the body part contains plain text in UTF-8 (and not any
> HTML
> > markup), the text (that is then encrypted) put into the body tag may not
> > contain markup.
> >
> > The comment from [2] is misleading, as of couse for protocols that define
> > the text to contain markup, the decrypted text can contain markup. It's
> > just that XMPP isn't one of them.
>
> The OTR specification to me, seems to be effectively protocol-agnostic
> (except with regard to maximum message size and fragmentation), which is
> unfortunate in this case, because it does not really address this (at
> least, from my quick once-over) and states that the unencrypted text
> (without qualification for "only some protocols") is "encoded in UTF-8,
> optionally with HTML markup."
>
> > As such, the libpurple implementation is wrong, while Miranda and climm
> > are correct.
>
> Then shouldn't Miranda and cliMM either be complaining vociferously that
> they received an invalid XMPP stanza or displaying the markup (i.e., the
> message from gdb in my previous message would appear as
> "foobarzle<br><br>foobarzle" in Miranda/cliMM, not
> "foobarzle<br><br>foobarzle")?
>
> > I remember that it was considered to change the lib to provide functions
> > to encode markup and non-markup in the next release, but I have no idea
> > what happened to it.
>
> That sounds good. Will it allow for a single IM to contain two encrypted
> payloads (one XHTML-IM, one plaintext)? I like the ability to send
> marked-up text over OTR over XMPP.
>
> Also, I'll repeat again: I'm of the opinion the libpurple OTR plugin's
> current behavior is *wrong* from a "how should this protocol work in an
> ideal world" perspective and unfairly relies on the receiver's client to
> grok the markup and/or strip it, but to the best of my knowledge, that
> isn't actually wrong according to the (underspecified, perhaps) OTR
> specification, which says nothing about the unencrypted message needing to
> conform to the rules of the protocol.
>
> ~Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090224/3dcdfa92/attachment.html>