| 11 Jan 2020 |
 Sorunome | e.g. someone hosts a public discord puppeting bridge abd the only requirement is a pi | 15:16:16 |
| Sorunome | Als Antwort auf@tulir:maunium.net
and multiple bridges, with a bot on each bridge then you need synapse. More dependencies | 15:16:29 |
 tulir | no, just add user-hostable bridges | 15:16:42 |
| Sorunome | anyhow, you won't want the bot in the 1:1 room, so you need a way for ghosts to have devices
| 15:17:16 |
| tulir | why not? canonical DMs will allow those unimportant users without interfering with the DMness | 15:17:36 |
| Sorunome | and the e2ee? | 15:18:06 |
| tulir | wat | 15:18:18 |
| Sorunome | oh, sorry, read message wrong. Atill confuses people that an additional user is present | 15:18:30 |
| tulir | how would it confuse people? 🤔 | 15:18:44 |
| Sorunome | soru remembers beibg asked explicitly to not have the bot in 1:1 whenever possible | 15:18:45 |
| tulir | In reply to @sorunome:sorunome.de
soru remembers beibg asked explicitly to not have the bot in 1:1 whenever possible that's only because clients mislabel rooms as not direct | 15:18:58 |
| Sorunome | "whaaaa, what is that bot, who can read along!"
| 15:19:04 |
| tulir | if the client labeling issues are solved, there's no problem having the bridge bot | 15:19:41 |
| Sorunome | like....if you go your route....why do AS's even receive things for their ghosts and not just the AS bot? | 15:19:46 |
| Sorunome | Als Antwort auf@tulir:maunium.net
if the client labeling issues are solved, there's no problem having the bridge bot yes there is. It looks ugly having an additional, unneeded user in there | 15:20:05 |
| tulir | In reply to @sorunome:sorunome.de
like....if you go your route....why do AS's even receive things for their ghosts and not just the AS bot? they don't need to, could just remove the whole AS special casing | 15:20:15 |
| tulir | In reply to @sorunome:sorunome.de
yes there is. It looks ugly having an additional, unneeded user in there just another labeling issue that canonical DMs will solve | 15:20:31 |
|  jcgruenhage joined the room. | 15:20:56 |
| tulir | and even if you really want the bot to get out, that should be solved by somehow using the same device, not thousands of devices each needing to be verified separately | 15:20:59 |
| Sorunome | Als Antwort auf@tulir:maunium.net
just another labeling issue that canonical DMs will solve how so? | 15:21:19 |
| tulir | trusting the bridge bot's device when receiving messages from a ghost needs some kind of device sharing/trust thing, so that could include sharing the whole device so the bridge bot doesn't need to be there | 15:21:34 |
| Sorunome | Als Antwort auf@tulir:maunium.net
and even if you really want the bot to get out, that should be solved by somehow using the same device, not thousands of devices each needing to be verified separately one server, multiple pis, needs multiple devices | 15:21:40 |
| tulir | In reply to @sorunome:sorunome.de
how so? bridge bot is one of those "unimportant" users, so clients will label it as such rather than a real participant | 15:21:51 |
| Sorunome | Als Antwort auf@tulir:maunium.net
bridge bot is one of those "unimportant" users, so clients will label it as such rather than a real participant it'd still show up in the userlist which is yuck | 15:22:11 |
| tulir | 🧐 | 15:22:20 |
| Sorunome | nods
| 15:22:28 |
| tulir | In reply to @sorunome:sorunome.de
it'd still show up in the userlist which is yuck that just isn't a problem | 15:22:42 |
| tulir | clients can have a separated list for the unimportant users | 15:22:53 |
| tulir | In reply to @sorunome:sorunome.de
one server, multiple pis, needs multiple devices unless you do some very dangerous shared bridge rooms, the bridges are basically separate and can have their own bots | 15:23:22 |
| jcgruenhage | So why do we even have appservices at all then? It sounds like you're arguing against the whole appservice spec here | 15:24:09 |
