News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Signal Desktop by xorcist on Wednesday December 02, 2015 @05:21PM (#10666290)
Surely battery saving modes should not drop messages? It could delay them but should never (well, almost never) drop them.
Re:Signal Desktop by newjersey on Wednesday December 02, 2015 @07:03PM (#10666826)
With no knowledge of how signal's servers actually implement this, I would like to ask you... how long should the central server hold on to the (encrypted) message that Alice sends to Bob if Bob never becomes available again?
Re:Signal Desktop by xorcist on Thursday December 03, 2015 @02:38AM (#10668331)
I haven't thought about what's reasonable (an hour? a week?) but it still shouldn't be dropped but bounced back to the sender with an undelivered message. At last that's how email solved it some thirty years ago.

(But perhaps a new protocol could take the opportunity to improve things further and offer on-line delivery status notifications throughout the process.)

No matter what, messages should never be silently dropped.

Re:Signal Desktop by newman314 on Wednesday December 02, 2015 @08:52PM (#10667225)
Best effort, deliver at least once?

At least that how it seems iMessage seems to work. I have no idea how long iMessage holds on the queue but it seems no more than a few days.

Not sure what kind of attack vector a public TTL would constitute.