The issue with that is then users could have two separate threads going with the same contact. One via sms and one over the encrypted data channel. If you want to talk about confusing a user that would do it. One thread is only sms and one is encrypted data. Even I would often mistakenly use the unencrypted thread even though I prefer the encrypted channel whenever possible.
--Bryan
On June 21, 2015 1:53:46 PM CDT, Diogo <***@riseup.net> wrote:
| Hello,
|
| I am not going to try to convince anyone about dropping or not SMS
| feature. SMS is indeed a good feature since TS does disk encryption to
| it on your personal phone.
|
| The point to me is that when we deal with non-tech people, people who
| don't care about encryption, the unencrypted follow-ups leaks your
| conversation to whatever phone company.
|
| One of the advantages of dropping SMS was a better handle of messages
| when uninstalling TS. Nowadays, the same bug persists and sometimes,
| this varies from user to user, even if both users are using TS, users
| can leak conversation by SMS.
|
| Please, some people have real concerns about it and need to be heard
| and
| to have a serious conversation about this.
|
| We are not trying to troll as some people over the list suggested.
| This
| is not about if we like or not SMS feature.
|
| Of course everybody would love it if it was reasonable. Since TS
| dropped. We need a better solution. Maybe to have some constraints
| like:
|
| - If you are talking through SMS channel, you should be able to reply
| only over SMS.
|
| - If you are talking through encrypted data channel, you should be
| able
| to reply only over encrypted data channel.
|
| That would avoid the unencrypted follow-ups and conversation leaks for
| now.
|
| Once again, I would like to have a serious, non-troll, conversation
| about it.
|
| Thanks and keep up the good work.
|
| Diogo
|
|
| On 12-06-2015 06:53, ***@consistency.at wrote:
| > it WAS the advantage of textsecure, by removing the encrypted sms
| > feature they made me "mess" around with two apps.
| >
| > having "secure" in its name, it implies that also the messages are
| > secure (also sms) which simply are not.
| >
| > my personal opionion is, bring back the encrypted sms feature or
| drop
| > the sms feature completly.
| >
| > but its only an opionion and i don't really care, i dropped
| textsecure
| > and switched to smssecure.
| >
| > really happy they made a fork.
| >
| > just my 2cts.
| >
| >
| > On 11/06/2015 17:48, TWfromSWD wrote:
| >> I totally agree! I really like that I don't have to mess with other
| >> Clients and can manage all my Messages in one App. I think, that is
| one
| >> of many Advantages of TextSecure.
| >>
| >> Am 11.06.2015 um 15:04 schrieb ***@gmx.de:
| >>> On 11.06.2015 14:25, Steffen MÀrcker wrote:
| >>>> I wholeheartedly agree. Serving as SMS client is one of the best
| and
| >>>> unique features of TextSecure and _the_ selling point to convince
| other
| >>>> to use it. Being "just another messenger" is exactly the reason
| why most
| >>>> of my iOS friends didn't give Signal even a try.
| >>> Couldn't have said it better.
| >>>
| >>>
| >>
| >
| >
| >
| >