Have you checked 'Require private messaging' ? That would probably prevent
unencrypted messages from being sent. If it doesn't do that, maybe an
option can be added to fail sending messages when OTR doesn't work.
That's the second OTR bug that was reported to this list, at least since I
joined. In both cases the problem happened only on very specific platforms,
maybe that's why they're hard to fix.
In any case, the default behavior on errors for OTR in Jitsi is to send the
message anyways but in plaintext. Even if the bugs can't be fixed, **this
should never happen**, a message should never be sent in the clear under
There's also the possibility that the bugs could be triggered remotely in a
man in the middle scenario. I don't think it's likely, but nevertheless,
this should be taken seriously IMHO.
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:09 AM, <email@example.com> wrote:
> Thats bad, so i am not the only one which loses OTR out of nothing.
> Currently i have Jitsi 5216 but i saw the drop of OTR first on 15.04.14.
> If Jitsi drops OTR with "the message was for an other connection" there
> no way to reinstall OTR to the channel, all further messages are send in
> plain text. All actions like reset OTR, force encryption, relogin,
> jitsi will fail.
> The secure chat menu lists more devices than what should be connected by
> my friend.
> Sadly on the other end the OTR icon does not change to the "unencrypted"
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Dominik George <firstname.lastname@example.org> > wrote:
>> in recent nightly builds, OTR has stopped working for me. Jitsi behaves
>> though both me and my contact were using several isntances and very old
>> versions ;). It somehow looks like a regression, but I have no idea
>> could possibly have been introduced?
>> What I experience ist that, after OTR got enabled automatically for a
>> conversation, a few messages come through, then Jitsi says that it
>> received a
>> message destined for another conenction and that was thus unreadable.
>> Only thing is, there is defenitely no other resource conencted on either
>> Any hints?