If a Delta Chat message has the Message-ID already existing in the db, but a greater "Date", it's a
resent message that can be deleted. Messages having the same "Date" mustn't be deleted because they
can be already seen messages moved back to INBOX. Also don't delete messages having lesser "Date" to
avoid deleting both messages in a multi-device setting.
Use `create_smeared_timestamp()` for this. This allows to dedup messages on the receiver -- if it
sees the same Message-ID, but a different timestamp, then it's a resent message that can be deleted.
"Auto-Submitted: auto-replied" messages mustn't be considered as sent by either bots or non-bots,
e.g. MDNs have this header value and it's the same for bots and non-bots.
In particular TLSRPT reports
contain files that may be interesting for admins.
Currently Delta Chat drops the attachment
so message appears as a text message without actual payload.
@adbenitez wants this feature on Deltalab to display a bot tag.
Other UIs might also want to adopt this feature :)
---------
Co-authored-by: link2xt <link2xt@testrun.org>
If we wait for inviter success,
vg-member-added message may be still in flight
and reach ac2 after device resetup.
Making ac2 wait for joining the group ensures that old
device receives vg-member-added message
and new device will not receive it and fail to decrypt.
Other instances of wait_for_securejoin_inviter_success()
in the same tests are also replaced for reliability.
Previously the message was removed from `download` table,
but message bubble was stuck in InProgress state.
Now download state is updated by the caller,
so it cannot be accidentally skipped.
This allows to send existing messages (incoming and outgoing) taken from encrypted chats, to
unencrypted ones. `Param::ForcePlaintext` is removed as well -- if a message can be sent encrypted
this time, nothing bad with this.
Currently `Chat.send_msg()` modifies the source message and returns another message object
equivalent to the source one. That's how it works in the core and thus in Python bindings too.
This is needed to protect from ESPs (such as gmx.at) doing their own Quoted-Printable encoding and
thus breaking messages and signatures. It's unlikely that the reader uses a MUA not supporting
Quoted-Printable encoding. And RFC 2646 "4.6" also recommends it for encrypted messages.
Trying non-strict TLS checks is not necessary
for most servers with proper TLS setup,
but doubles the time needed to fail configuration
when the server is not responding, e.g.
when all connection attempts time out.
There is also a risk of accidentally
configuring non-strict TLS checks in a rare case
that strict TLS check configuration spuriously failed,
e.g. on a bad network.
If the server has a known broken TLS setup,
it can still be added to the provider database
or configured with non-strict TLS check manually.
User can also configure another email provider,
such as chatmail servers, instead of using the server
with invalid TLS hostname.
This change does not affect exising setups.
