3 ms·
I'm sure you've tried or at least considered it, but you didn't explicitly mention it so: XMPP? The MUC extension has no problem with large groups (after a cert
by gertop 2mo ago
I'm sure you've tried or at least considered it, but you didn't explicitly mention it so: XMPP? The MUC extension has no problem with large groups (after a certain point you have to disable presence advertisement and reflections and whatnot, but that's way north of 100)
XMPP has several ways of doing e2ee, the most popular being OMEMO.
The challenge will be finding clients that supports OMEMO for MUCs (multi user chats) on each platform. They exist on desktop, at the very least.
- fedpost 2mo agoThis is a non-technical group so the main concern I have is the same with Element vs Element X vs Fluffy vs ...... It's definitely tempting though, it seems to be by far the most flexible solution.
- zaik 2mo agoIt's an effect of walled gardens that the communication method is conflated with the app. But people understand well that Outlook and Thunderbird is both just email. I think this analogy helps when explaining XMPP.
- ezst 2mo agoand to add to that, XMPP has extremely simple and familiar "WhatsApp"-like clients, so there's really not much of a barrier to entry. Especially if you join by a user sending you an easy-invite link (XEP-0401). All you have to do is pick a username and you are good to go.
- ezst 2mo agoI would also challenge OP on the relevance of E2EE for very large MUCs: beyond a certain point, the room can't reasonably be considered private. With current (Signal-style, also found in XMPP, Matrix, …) crypto, you are encoding ever message for every user/client joined, which scales as poorly as one can guess, but is still adequate for small groupchats. MLS stands to rise that threshold (and there's work in progress to include it in XMPP), but that certainly won't address the fact that this is just privacy theater.