pidgin: bf66b180: Patch to fix retrieval of ICQ status mes...

John Bailey rekkanoryo at
Mon Feb 2 16:46:50 EST 2009

Mark Doliner wrote:
>> So, I'm going to leave this to others to decide.  Should we change back to
>> identifying as ICQ Basic?  Or should we try to figure out what's busted with our
>> handling of ICQ available messages when we claim to be ICQ 6.0?
> I'm fine with trying to identify ourselves as ICQ Basic.

I just did that in my local tree and it does not work.  I still receive the
"client is too old" error message.  I'm going to leave us identifying as ICQ 6.0.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the Devel mailing list