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

[Mark Doliner]

2009/1/28 John Bailey <rekkanoryo at rekkanoryo.org>:
> rekkanoryo at pidgin.im wrote:
>> ChangeLog:
>>
>> Patch to fix retrieval of ICQ status messages from users of ICQ 6.x, Miranda,
>> and libpurple users.  Retrieval of messages from libpurple users works only
>> for statuses that are not Available.  Fixes #703, #892, #4904, #4984, #6848.
>
> I'm sure someone's going to ask this question, so I figured I'd answer ahead of
> time.  The reason this doesn't work for Available statuses isn't completely
> clear.  If we change libpurple to identify as ICQ Basic 14.34.3000, then it
> works for Available as well.
>
> The problem I see with this is we used to identify as ICQ Basic prior to 2.4.3.
>  The servers started rejecting that client ID, which prompted us to change to
> identifying as ICQ 6.0.  I've been reluctant to reverse that particular client
> ID change, mainly because of the breakage we experienced, but also because I
> wasn't sure if it would break the ICQ X-Status stuff Richard and I have worked
> on.  However, Dimmuxx, the author of this patch, assures me that using that
> client ID does work and does not break X-Status (Miranda uses the same client ID
> and X-Status works for them).
>
> 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?

Hey John, thanks for looking at this patch.  The changes look pretty
good to me.  I'm wondering if it will result in multiple UI updates
for AIM buddies who are away, once from purple_parse_oncoming() and
again from purple_got_infoblock(), but that's a minor problem, and if
newer versions of AIM are putting away messages in the info->status
field then the message in purple_got_infoblock() might be exactly the
same as the one set in purple_parse_oncoming(), in which case our
status code would hopefully do a no-op.  It's a pretty minor issue, in
any case.

I'm fine with trying to identify ourselves as ICQ Basic.

-Mark