We do not try to delete resent messages
anymore. Previously resent messages
were distinguised by having duplicate Message-ID,
but future Date, but now we need to download
the message before we even see the Date.
We now move the message to the destination folder
but do not fetch it.
It may not be a good idea to delete
the duplicate in multi-device setups anyway,
because the device which has a message
may delete the duplicate of a message
the other device missed.
To avoid triggering IMAP busy move loop
described in the comments
we now only move the messages
from INBOX and Spam folders.
This way, the statistics / self-reporting bot will be made into an
opt-in regular sending of statistics, where you enable the setting once
and then they will be sent automatically. The statistics will be sent to
a bot, so that the user can see exactly which data is being sent, and
how often. The chat will be archived and muted by default, so that it
doesn't disturb the user.
The collected statistics will focus on the public-key-verification that
is performed while scanning a QR code. Later on, we can add more
statistics to collect.
**Context:**
_This is just to give a rough idea; I would need to write a lot more
than a few paragraphs in order to fully explain all the context here_.
End-to-end encrypted messengers are generally susceptible to MitM
attacks. In order to mitigate against this, messengers offer some way of
verifying the chat partner's public key. However, numerous studies found
that most popular messengers implement this public-key-verification in a
way that is not understood by users, and therefore ineffective - [a 2021
"State of Knowledge" paper
concludes:](https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3558482.3581773)
> Based on our evaluation, we have determined that all current E2EE
apps, particularly when operating in opportunistic E2EE mode, are
incapable of repelling active man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks. In
addition, we find that none of the current E2EE apps provide better and
more usable [public key verification] ceremonies, resulting in insecure
E2EE communications against active MitM attacks.
This is why Delta Chat tries to go a different route: When the user
scans a QR code (regardless of whether the QR code creates a 1:1 chat,
invites to a group, or subscribes to a broadcast channel), a
public-key-verification is performed in the background, without the user
even having to know about this.
The statistics collected here are supposed to tell us whether Delta Chat
succeeds to nudge the users into using QR codes in a way that is secure
against MitM attacks.
**Plan for statistics-sending:**
- [x] Get this PR reviewed and merged (but don't make it available in
the UI yet; if Android wants to make a release in the meantime, I will
create a PR that removes the option there)
- [x] Set the interval to 1 week again (right now, it's 1 minute for
testing)
- [ ] Write something for people who are interested in what exactly we
count, and link to it (see `TODO[blog post]` in the code)
- [ ] Prepare a short survey for participants
- [ ] Fine-tune the texts at
https://github.com/deltachat/deltachat-android/pull/3794, and get it
reviewed and merged
- [ ] After the next release, ask people to enable the
statistics-sending
Create unprotected group in test_create_protected_grp_multidev
The test is renamed accordingly.
SystemMessage::ChatE2ee is added in encrypted groups
regardless of whether they are protected or not.
Previously new encrypted unprotected groups
had no message saying that messages are end-to-end encrypted
at all.
This mechanism replaces `Chat-Verified` header.
New parameter `_verified=1` in `Autocrypt-Gossip`
header marks that the sender has the gossiped key
verified.
Using `_verified=1` instead of `_verified`
because it is less likely to cause troubles
with existing Autocrypt header parsers.
This is also how https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2045
defines parameter syntax.
Any control information from the message
should only be downloaded when the message
is fully downloaded to avoid processing it twice.
Besides, "partial" messages may actually be full messages
with an error that are only processed as partial
to add a message bubble allowing to download the message later.
Old Delta Chat clients don't provide timestamps for added and removed members in messages, so at
least implicit member changes may be ignored as it's not clear if they are newer than explicit
member changes from modern clients. Lost messages aren't so frequent anyway, and overall
compatibility with old versions may be limited already.
Ignoring `receive_imf_inner()` errors, i.e. silently skipping messages on failures, leads to bugs
never fixed. As for temporary I/O errors, ignoring them leads to lost messages, in this case it's
better to bubble up the error and get the IMAP loop stuck. However if there's some logic error, it's
better to show it to the user so that it's more likely reported, and continue receiving messages. To
distinguish these cases, on error, try adding the message as partially downloaded with the error set
to `msgs.error`, this way the user also can retry downloading the message to finally see it if the
problem is fixed.
- sync declined calls from callee to caller, as usual in all larger
messengers
- introduce the call states "Missed call", "Declined call" and
"Cancelled all" ("Ended call" is gone)
- allow calling end_call()/accept_call() for already ended/accepted
calls, in practise, handling all cornercases is tricky in UI - and the
state needs anyways to be tracked.
- track and show the call duration
the duration calculation depends on local time, but it is displayed only
coarse and is not needed for any state. this can be improved as needed,
timestamps of the corresponding messages are probably better at some
point. or ending device sends its view of the time around. but for the
first throw, it seems good enough
if we finally want that set of states, it can be exposed to a json-info
in a subsequent call, so that the UI can render it more nicely. fallback
strings as follows will stay for now to make adaption in other UI easy,
and for debugging:
<img width="320" alt="IMG_0154"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/09a89bfb-66f4-4184-b05c-e8040b96cf44"
/>
successor of https://github.com/chatmail/core/pull/6650
this PR uses the initial "call messages" (that has a separate viewtype
since #7174) to show all call status.
this is what most other messengers are doing as well. additional "info
messages" after a call are no longer needed.
on the wire, as we cannot pickpack on visible info messages, we use
hidden messages, similar to eg. webxdc status updates.
in future PR, it is planned to allow getting call state as a json, so
that UI can render nicely. it is then decided if we want to translate
the strings in the core.
<img width="320" alt="IMG_0150"
src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/41ee3fa3-8be4-42c3-8dd9-d20f49881650"
/>
successor of https://github.com/chatmail/core/pull/6650
a dedicated viewtype allows the UI to show a more advanced UI, but even
when using the defaults,
it has the advantage that incoming/outgoing and the date are directly
visible.
successor of https://github.com/chatmail/core/pull/6650
Also verify not yet verified contacts w/o setting a verifier for them (in the db it's stored as
`verifier_id=id` though) because we don't know who verified them for another device.
We haven't dropped verified groups yet, so we need to do smth with messages that can't be verified
yet which often occurs because of messages reordering, particularly in large groups. Apart from the
reported case #7059, i had other direct reports that sometimes messages can't be verified for
various reasons, but when the reason is already fixed, it should be possible to re-download failed
messages and see them.
Also remove the code replacing the message text with a verification error from
`apply_group_changes()` as `add_parts()` already does this.
Encrypted message may create unencrypted groups
if the message does not have a Chat-Group-ID.
This can happen if v1 client sends an encrypted
message to opportunistically encrypted ad hoc group.
In this case `from_id` corresponds to the key-contact,
but we should add address-contact of the sender
to the member list.
We don't want to prefer returning verified contacts because e.g. if a bot was reinstalled and its
key changed, it may not be verified, and we don't want to bring the user to the old chat if they
click on the bot email address. But trying to return accepted contacts increases security and
doesn't break the described scenario.
- It's obvious that addresses are needed to add contacts, so `_by_address_list` looks excessive.
- The function only looks up `SELF` by address.
- The name was confusing because there's also `lookup_key_contacts_by_address_list()` that actually
looks up key contacts by addresses (not only `SELF`).
This PR adds a test to reproduce a bug raised by @adbenitez that peer
channels break when the resend feature is used.
---------
Co-authored-by: iequidoo <dgreshilov@gmail.com>
This should fix https://github.com/chatmail/core/issues/7030; @r10s if
you could test whether it fixes your problem
The crash happened if you received a message that has the from contact
also in the "To: " and "Chat-Group-Member-Fpr: " headers. Not sure how
it happened that such a message was created.
Add `logged_debug_assert` macro logging a warning if a condition is not satisfied, before invoking
`debug_assert!`, and use this macro where `Context` is accessible (i.e. don't change function
signatures for now).
Follow-up to 0359481ba4.
We have some debug assertions already, but we also want the corresponding errors in the release
configuration so that it's not less reliable than non-optimized one. This doesn't change any
function signatures, only debug assertions in functions returning `Result` are replaced.
Co-authored-by: l <link2xt@testrun.org>
Part of #6884.
The channel owner will not be notified in any way that you left, they
will only see that there is one member less.
For the translated stock strings, this is what we agreed on in the
group:
- Add a new "Leave Channel" stock string (will need to be done in UIs)
- Reword the existing "Are you sure you want to leave this group?"
string to "Are you sure you want to leave?" (the options are "Cancel"
and "Leave Group" / "Leave Channel", so it's clear what you are leaving)
(will need to be done in the deltachat-android repo, other UIs will pick
it up automatically)
- Reword the existing "You left the group." string to "You left". (done
here, I will adapt the strings in deltachat-android, too)
I adapted DC Android by pushing
6df2740884
to https://github.com/deltachat/deltachat-android/pull/3783.
---------
Co-authored-by: l <link2xt@testrun.org>
Non-members can't modify the member list (incl. adding themselves), modify an ephemeral timer, so
they shouldn't be able to change the group name or avatar, just for consistency. Even if messages
are reordered and a group name change from a new member arrives before its addition, the new group
name will be applied on a receipt of the next message following the addition message because
Chat-Group-Name-Timestamp increases. While Delta Chat groups aimed for chatting with trusted
contacts, accepting group changes from everyone knowing Chat-Group-Id means that if any of the past
members have the key compromised, the group should be recreated which looks impractical.
