wishlist

> telegram client can drain my battery in a very low number of hours (got suggestions here? any client supporting UnifiedPush?) It's possible. There is nothing ready right now. [1] https://github.com/UnifiedPush/wishlist/issues/18 [2] https://github.com/Telegram-FOSS-Team/Telegram-FOSS/issues/5...

I agree that mandatory encryption would massively help privacy, integrity and even compliance [1]. However, the main cost is developer-effort involved in keeping track of keys and implementing encryption. As a small project, ease of adoption has been our most important goal. However, as we work towards better WebPush compatibility [2], I personally absolutely want to promote RFC8291 encryption and make it easy to implement for developers using UnifiedPush, hopefully making it the norm. [1] https://volkerkrause.eu/2022/11/12/kde-unifiedpush-push-noti... [2] https://github.com/UnifiedPush/wishlist/issues/15

> It looks like the submission side of UnifiedPush could indeed have been Web Push-compatible but isn’t, though. Exactly. It was discussed a bit early on whether to mandate encryption, but simplicity was chosen instead. Adjusting the server protocol to make it compatible with WebPush is also being discussed: https://github.com/UnifiedPush/wishlist/issues/15 That would be useful for supporting Telegram, for instance. I don't really see it becoming mandatory, however.

Regarding Signal, I don't think they have been approached yet... https://github.com/UnifiedPush/wishlist/issues/8 I think the consensus was that we wanted to wait for UnifiedPush to be more mature before approaching them, but it's probably about time. S1m made an interesting implementation for the (compatible) Signal fork Molly: https://github.com/mollyim/mollyim-android/pull/152 The implementation is quite interesting: it adds a linked device that does not receive encryption keys, but sends push notifications to the client.