Instead of the PING and PONG! thing why doesnt Plus! have a feature that if its enabled it will allow the other person to know that he/she has Plus! It can also be easy disabled. The reason i ask this is because if i  Ping somebody and they dont have plus imma gonna look bad ... Another if Plus! detects its not on the other computer then maybe it wouldnt send formats in the nickname. Maybe plugins can use this too.

I was going to suggest this the other day.
You could for example have one of those 5 letter tag things attached to the first message of taht convosation. And if the other contact has plus, then there first message back contains the five letter code.
Although you couldnt stop them seeing your coloured name.
It could pop up a message when your trying to send a command like /me.
And the message could say something like "Your contact does not have plus installed and wont see the command correctly, do you still want to send?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by madman66
It could pop up a message when your trying to send a command like /me.
And the message could say something like "Your contact does not have plus installed and wont see the command correctly, do you still want to send?"

---

man, if patchou wanted to add autodetection he would have done it...
think before you post, he has added ping and you'll have to live with it.

there's no other way to know wether a contact has plus! or not. end of story?

*ignores M_e's post and waits for Cookie to come on this thread (like he does on EVERY thread ) and accually post something meaningful and helpful*

I think it had something to do with breach of privacy

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
*ignores M_e's post and waits for Cookie to come on this thread (like he does on EVERY thread ) and accually post something meaningful and helpful*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fukafly
I think it had something to do with breach of privacy

---

but you know...it wouldnt be a breach of privacy if it were an option...and default off....because if that were the case...obviously the person has to WANT people to be able to check for plus to actually turn it on...unless they're just plain stupid and turn on every option in sight...i still think he should go with it...

And it is send as text. Almost no other way to do it without doing dodgy stuff with the protocol. And text can't be hidden...

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fukafly
I think it had something to do with breach of privacy

---

This is indeed the mean reason.

The request that riahc4 made has been done several times since /ping was added. (eg: to add a Plus! sign on top of the convo window if the user had Plus!, etc...) Patchou always replied with the explanation that it would be some kind of a breach of trust/privacy. And that's why he implemented it the way he did. If he wanted it he could've programmed it so it was invisible, but for above reasons he didn't, just like M_E said/suggested.

---

i dunno the answer to that but you do make a good point there. if i click webcam on my convos i get a message back saying this contact doesnt have the ability to accept webcams or something like that come back to me surely plus could do something like that if the webcam thing isnt an invasion of privacy when it tests then neither would a plus tester script be an invasion of privacy. thats all im gonna say on the matter ive said my 2 cents so im gonna shut up now and not rgue further.

why wouldn't anyone want other people to know that he/she has installed plus! on his/her computer? because they are ashamed of plus??? if they dont feel comfortable with plus, they wouldn't have installed it in the first place, right?

Occassionally when I'm bored I'll have a look at the Messenger Plus Contact Information for a few of my contacts and if it displays the common "may or may not have Plus! installed..." message then I'll click the "Check for Plus" button which will open a new convo and performa a standard ping. If they don't have it installed then they will probably reply with something like "???" in which case you have the unique opportunity to introduce them to Messenger Plus. After all, don't you want your contacts to be able to view your custom status', messages and actually see any of the convenient text formatting you can put into your messages?

Patrick

quote:

---

Originally posted by Millenium_edition

there's no other way to know wether a contact has plus! or not. end of story?

---

i have this friend who didn't even know he has plus installed up until i pinged him...

of course i wanna shout it from the roof tops that i have plus but due to the inherrant instability of messenger i cant mass message all my contacts at once and you can only email 50 contacts at once through hotmail so telling people you have plus is a long winded process

quote:

---

Originally posted by stuartbennett
so telling people you have plus is a long winded process

---

yeah i guess you gotta point there

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fukafly
I think it had something to do with breach of privacy

---

This is indeed the mean reason.

The request that riahc4 made has been done several times since /ping was added. (eg: to add a Plus! sign on top of the convo window if the user had Plus!, etc...) Patchou always replied with the explanation that it would be some kind of a breach of trust/privacy. And that's why he implemented it the way he did. If he wanted it he could've programmed it so it was invisible, but for above reasons he didn't, just like M_E said/suggested.

---

OK if this was the reason then why does MSN have a icon that shows that the other person has a webcam or not? And of course the person can disable it and show that he doesnt want people to know he got a cam.


(sorry bout the bump havent been here in a while)

---

I had disgused this with Patchou during the making of Plus!2. We talked about all the ways possible and they all lead to the same answer. He could have used a Plus! to send information to the other computer, but then he would have to use Winsock, and Patchou never uses any controls for Plus!. Basically there is no way Patchou can/will do this.

Cookie's post is explaining the fact that it could be a breech of privacy even if there is an option to hide having it (which there is when it comes to responding to /ping requests). The webcam isn't a breech of privacy since you have the option of, and I quote from the Options in MSN Messenger, "Share my webcam capabilities with others." Meaning if its unchecked you wont see the webcam icon in the convo, if it is checked, you will see it.

There is nothing wrong with /ping it's perfectly fine don't bother Patchou plus is great and doesn't need anything at the mo to make it better.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matty

Cookie's post is explaining the fact that it could be a breech of privacy even if there is an option to hide having it (which there is when it comes to responding to /ping requests). The webcam isn't a breech of privacy since you have the option of, and I quote from the Options in MSN Messenger, "Share my webcam capabilities with others." Meaning if its unchecked you wont see the webcam icon in the convo, if it is checked, you will see it.

---

i agree with riahc your arguement made no sense matty

Stop trying to find reasons to add/change it... It wont be done for all the reasons that we've already pointed out.


It can't be compared with the webcam option in Messenger. This option is already part of Messenger, and there is still a huge difference between something that is already part of a software and something that is added by a 3rd party. Privacy IS an issue here...

If it was added in a hidden way, then Plus! sends packets behind the back of the user. This IS a privacy breach. Even if the other contact has disabled the return of the ping, the packet is still send to that user. And THAT is were the privacy issue is. Plus! is already called spyware sometimes (without any reasons). If this is added in this way, then there are reasons to call it that. (I know there is still a difference, but that is what those people are looking for: lame excuses to call it spyware: "hey, I discovered that it sends hidden info"...)

Also, the thing above can be done in several ways: using the current protocol, or using a P2P method. Both methods are out of the question for Plus!. Plus! will never temper with the protocol (like other addons). It is suppose to be a "clean"/"non-invasive" addon. The P2P method is also out of the question because of the reason that Matty gave: Patchou wont add a dirty winsock-layer method to do this.

Also, don't forget the fact that people will not always have Plus!. Their Messenger should be able to handle the send "packet" without "beeping" up. If something is send to someone without Plus! they can say, again, that something is sending dodgy things to them (=again privacy issue and also the "dodgy software" factor).

So, how to do it in a clean way? By sending a textmessage... And text can't be hidden. And even if it could, it wouldn't be a nice thing to do...

Like Matty already said: all the methods available have been discussed before this was added. And this is the best, cleanest and proper way...

some people thinks that sending a ping? command to someone without msgplus would look weird.  A possible solution is to change "ping?" into "Ping! Do you have msgPlus?" and answer with "Pong! Sure do!" or something similar so that if the other person had never heard of msgplus, it doesn't sound weird...

a possible solution to auto detection would be to add an option in msgplus's preference (default=off) which when turned on, msgplus sends a visible "ping?" command to all the contacts who "may or may not have msgplus installed"

ok cookie i understand what you are saying but i know people think that seeing a ping on their screens looks weird when i send 1 they are always going "??" cause they dont understand why ive said that then i have to try and explain it to them.

a few of the people i pinged last week said that plus buggered up their computer and they had to format to fix the problem. any ideas what might have caused that?

ok back on topic can it be changed that when i type /ping the user sees "do you have messenger plus? if no you can check it out at www.msgplus.net" and then if they have plus it comes back pong but we wont see pong we will see "yes i have messenger plus" or something like that? its just an idea you wouldnt be changing the whole feature so it wouldnt be invasion of privacy youd just be changing the text that users see when using the ping and pong feature is all surely that couldnt do any harm right?

Ill analize by parts....

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised

It can't be compared with the webcam option in Messenger. This option is already part of Messenger, and there is still a huge difference between something that is already part of a software and something that is added by a 3rd party. Privacy IS an issue here...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
 
If it was added in a hidden way, then Plus! sends packets behind the back of the user. This IS a privacy breach. Even if the other contact has disabled the return of the ping, the packet is still send to that user. And THAT is were the privacy issue is. Plus! is already called spyware sometimes (without any reasons). If this is added in this way, then there are reasons to call it that. (I know there is still a difference, but that is what those people are looking for: lame excuses to call it spyware: "hey, I discovered that it sends hidden info"...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised

Also, the thing above can be done in several ways: using the current protocol, or using a P2P method. Both methods are out of the question for Plus!. Plus! will never temper with the protocol (like other addons).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised

It is suppose to be a "clean"/"non-invasive" addon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised

The P2P method is also out of the question because of the reason that Matty gave: Patchou wont add a dirty winsock-layer method to do this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised

Also, don't forget the fact that people will not always have Plus!. Their Messenger should be able to handle the send "packet" without "beeping" up. If something is send to someone without Plus! they can say, again, that something is sending dodgy things to them (=again privacy issue and also the "dodgy software" factor).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
Once again i bet MSN Messenger also sends a packet for the webcam detection feature so that also could possibly be exploited if further investigacion is done. Your saying something cant be done even tho its already in MSN Messenger. Why keep the chat log then if messenger already has one then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
How bout the File Transfer Plus plugin that was made by RicarDog? This uses something like you stated i belive. If Patchou found it to be illegal or incorrect dont you think he would have removed it from the forums?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
It can't be compared with the webcam option in Messenger. This option is already part of Messenger, and there is still a huge difference between something that is already part of a software and something that is added by a 3rd party. Privacy IS an issue here...

---

Ok the webcam detection feature is a part of messenger but it isnt a privacy breaking feature but a 3rd party addon that adds something similar isnt?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4With this thinking since all features in Messenger are built in then Plus! couldnt make/add more features to it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
If it was added in a hidden way, then Plus! sends packets behind the back of the user. This IS a privacy breach. Even if the other contact has disabled the return of the ping, the packet is still send to that user. And THAT is were the privacy issue is. Plus! is already called spyware sometimes (without any reasons). If this is added in this way, then there are reasons to call it that. (I know there is still a difference, but that is what those people are looking for: lame excuses to call it spyware: "hey, I discovered that it sends hidden info"...)

---

Once again i bet MSN Messenger also sends a packet for the webcam detection feature so that also could possibly be exploited if further investigacion is done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
Your saying something cant be done even tho its already in MSN Messenger. Why keep the chat log then if messenger already has one then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
Also, the thing above can be done in several ways: using the current protocol, or using a P2P method. Both methods are out of the question for Plus!. Plus! will never temper with the protocol (like other addons).

---

How bout the File Transfer Plus plugin that was made by RicarDog? This uses something like you stated i belive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
If Patchou found it to be illegal or incorrect dont you think he would have removed it from the forums?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
It is suppose to be a "clean"/"non-invasive" addon.

---

Of course i agree completely and it should remain like this as long as possible but (AND THIS IS OFFTOPIC AND MY STRICT OPINION) minds evolutionize as you and me both know. What happens when MSN decides to change messenger drasticly in where no "hooking" can occur? What will be the future of Plus! then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
Also, don't forget the fact that people will not always have Plus!. Their Messenger should be able to handle the send "packet" without "beeping" up. If something is send to someone without Plus! they can say, again, that something is sending dodgy things to them (=again privacy issue and also the "dodgy software" factor).

---

The "PLUS IZ SPIWARE!111!!!" comments will always be there. Haters just hate cuz they aint popular like Patchou/Msgplus and broke ass people that aint getting no money either. The noob factor is a whole nother issue

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
And because it is 3rd party it IS a privacy breach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevisedExactly, Plus! will NEVER add features which are an invasion of privacy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised Once again, PRIVACY BREACH! Because it isn't an build-in feature of Messenger and because Plus! wont temper with the protocol.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevisedWhere did I say it can't be done? I said it wont be done! Besides what has chat-logging to do (even remotely) with anything discussed here?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised Not similar at all! Furthermore I said Patchou and Plus! wont add anything P2P. I didn't say that plugins (which are 3rd party compared to Plus!) couldn't do it...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
If Patchou can't find a "clean"/"non-invasive" way, it will stop...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
That isn't an excuse to include this to give those people even more reasons to say that...




riahc4, please stop to try and convince people, it wont be added for all the reasons we gave already several times before. No matter how hard you try (also because you're starting to give contradicting or offtopic reasons). sorry....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
CookieRevised, please stop trying to make valid points look bad. If your running outta arguments and this is your way to make yourself still look good then just dont reply to the thread. Maybe some of the points you argumented because i didnt express them correctly. My ideas are for Plus! not for the "people"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
And because it is 3rd party it IS a privacy breach

---

OK ill give you a better example; MSN puts in a new feature that detects the version of MSN on the other side but Plus also decides to make this feature for Plus! too. Your saying that it would be a breach of privacy on the part of Plus! BUT not MSN?? Why make addon's thenl???

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
Once again, PRIVACY BREACH! Because it isn't an build-in feature of Messenger and because Plus! wont temper with the protocol.

---

To enable this feature (Plus! Detection) the protocol would have to be used?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
Where did I say it can't be done? I said it wont be done! Besides what has chat-logging to do (even remotely) with anything discussed here?

---

Chat-loggin has nothing to do with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
Chat loggin is both in Plus! and in MSN. Webcam detection is in MSN so why not Plus! detection? That is the relation between them

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
Furthermore I said Patchou and Plus! wont add anything P2P. I didn't say that plugins (which are 3rd party compared to Plus!) couldn't do it...

---

Theres more than one way around the wall; meaning if p2p doesnt want to be done then theres gotta be another way...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
riahc4, please stop to try and convince people, it wont be added for all the reasons we gave already several times before. No matter how hard you try (also because you're starting to give contradicting or offtopic reasons). sorry....

---

CookieRevised, please stop trying to make valid points look bad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
If your running outta arguments and this is your way to make yourself still look good then just dont reply to the thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
My ideas are for Plus! not for the "people"

---

You know, I typically read cookie's replies with great interest since he obviously has some insights not available to the rest of us, but the response here, and in other threads I've read recently, is starting to sound very "know it all".  I understand that there are potential privacy issues here, but to just blatantly state that this is a breach of privacy because Patchou says so is pretty silly (I know there were other reasons stated as well, but I happen to see things differently).  It could be argued that other existing plugins (like StuffPlug-NG) are being equally intrusive.  I think it's important to try to listen to others insights and not just shoot them down with snotty comebacks, and "Patchou already said no".

And in spite of this whole discussion, I think the point being made by stuartbennet and riahc4 is that the current /ping solution is not a very good one since those without plus see an apparently meaningless tag they weren't expecting.  I agree wholeheartedly and there has to be a better way, privacy issues aside.

thanks caldjeff

quote:

---

MSN will not include this in a hidden way just because of the fact that it is a privacy breach. Why should you have to know in a sneaky way what version the other one is using? If this is added, it will be in a visible way so the other user knows you are requestion the versionnumber. The same with Plus!: Plus! will not include this in a hidden way, hence it is included in a visible way...

---

quote:

---

I suggest you to reread this thread to know why I mention the protocol here (in short: using the protocol is 1 method of doing it) ...

---

quote:

---

Then why did you used it to make a "point"?

---

quote:

---

Again... (): Webcam detection IS already included in Messenger. MSN can do (almost) whatever they want in their own program. It will NOT be a privacy breach because EVERYBODY is using the same program and thus the same protocol, thus EVERYBODY _should_ know that it has this feature already included (also see the old discussion about "msn logging=privacy breach?").

---

quote:

---

NOT everybody has Plus! and if those people without Plus! are being "pinged" in a hidden way, then that could be a privacy breach towards them. Hence it is NOT done in a hidden way...

---

quote:

---

No there isn't... The other methods are also out of the question for Plus!... Reread the thread, all the methods have been mentioned and explained. The only valid method is using textmessages, just like it is done now.

---

quote:

---

With all respect but, like M_E said, I think I can say I know Plus! a bit better then you (so it seems) and what Patchou has said in the past about these things.

---

quote:

---

in short: NO protocol tempering, NO P2P things, NO hidden things, NO things which could breach the privacy, even in a remote way... period!

---

quote:

---

That doesn't make sense. Plus! IS for the "people". And because Plus! is used by millions of users, there are things that need to be done (or not done for that matter) for the "protection" of those users...

---

quote:

---

You know, I typically read cookie's replies with great interest since he obviously has some insights not available to the rest of us, but the response here, and in other threads I've read recently, is starting to sound very "know it all".  I understand that there are potential privacy issues here, but to just blatantly state that this is a breach of privacy because Patchou says so is pretty silly (I know there were other reasons stated as well, but I happen to see things differently).  It could be argued that other existing plugins (like StuffPlug-NG) are being equally intrusive.  I think it's important to try to listen to others insights and not just shoot them down with snotty comebacks, and "Patchou already said no".

And in spite of this whole discussion, I think the point being made by stuartbennet and riahc4 is that the current /ping solution is not a very good one since those without plus see an apparently meaningless tag they weren't expecting.  I agree wholeheartedly and there has to be a better way, privacy issues aside.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by caldjeff
You know, I typically read cookie's replies with great interest since he obviously has some insights not available to the rest of us, but the response here, and in other threads I've read recently, is starting to sound very "know it all".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by caldjeff
I understand that there are potential privacy issues here, but to just blatantly state that this is a breach of privacy because Patchou says so is pretty silly

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by caldjeff
(I know there were other reasons stated as well, but I happen to see things differently).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by caldjeff
It could be argued that other existing plugins (like StuffPlug-NG) are being equally intrusive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by caldjeff
I think it's important to try to listen to others insights and not just shoot them down with snotty comebacks, and "Patchou already said no".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by caldjeff
And in spite of this whole discussion, I think the point being made by stuartbennet and riahc4 is that the current /ping solution is not a very good one since those without plus see an apparently meaningless tag they weren't expecting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by caldjeff
I agree wholeheartedly and there has to be a better way, privacy issues aside.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
OK so like i said make it visible so both users know that (if the feature is enabled) it is checking if Plus! is on the computer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
Ok then dont use the protocol or p2p or anything you mentioned which Patchou doesnt like.....whats the big point?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
Forget it, it seems you dont read my replies and just browse thru them so you can get incorrect point and argument against them...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
OK so when someone downloads Plus! they should be told about this new feature of auto detection (and because its a such big issue about privacy then it be disabled from default)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
NOT everybody has Plus! and if those people without Plus! are being "pinged" in a hidden way, then that could be a privacy breach towards them. Hence it is NOT done in a hidden way...

---

This is the only valid point ive seen in all of your argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
So what i say is maybe a test; if there are complains remove it if not then the auto detection stays.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
No there isn't... The other methods are also out of the question for Plus!... Reread the thread, all the methods have been mentioned and explained. The only valid method is using textmessages, just like it is done now.

---

Yes there is because everything is tech hasnt been discovered so some devs maybe overlooking something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
If i think of something ill post it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
in short: NO protocol tempering, NO P2P things, NO hidden things, NO things which could breach the privacy, even in a remote way... period!

---

These things then shouldnt be used....Simple solution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
I thank you for your backup but Cookie is problably the person that knows just as much as Patchou bout Plus!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by riahc4
so his arguments (altho not really valid) are true about Plus! but still isnt a excuse for this feature not to be implanted or at least thought about.

---

what a long discussion... I've alredy been very clear in the past about this: I cannot add automatic detection of plus for privacy reasons. Some people are just waiting for a reason to write another bad review of my software (and myself in the process), I wont give them this chance. If you want to complain, talk to all the paranoid people out there .

i wish riach4 would just face life and stop bugging people about crap.

And go cookie

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised

Also note that the big difference between MSN Messenger, Plus! and plugins is that MSN Messenger is used by everybody. Plus! is not used by everybody, but those who use it espect to use a "safe" non-intrusive application. And although plugins are supported by Plus!, they must be used at the users own risk. If the user chooses to use a intrusive plugin, that's his choice. But that user can't force anybody else to use a certain plugin (eg: oversized emoticons in StuffPlug-NG; both need the plugin for this to work). So there are the three big differences between the three types of programs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised
The only thing that I've said is that this suggestion (auto-checking for Plus! in a hidden way) is a breach of privacy and therefore will not be added. If that is too difficult to believe, and a reason to start a heavy discussion then so be it, but facts stay facts. And this isn't to play the "the all knowing person"; This is me informing people that it is a privacy issue and/or flooding issue and will not be added because of that, just like I said in my first post in this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by caldjeff
I'm sorry, but I still don't agree with your reasoning here.  It just seems like you're drawing bogus conclusions.  If your "everybody is using it" logic is the determining factor, then why can I write a simple script in php and immediately determine what operating system you are using, what browser and version you are using, the ip address of your computer, what browser plugins you have installed on your machine, and whether or not you have enabled javascript.  Is this a breach of privacy?  Some may think it is, but I happen to think not, along with Microsoft, Apple, Macromedia, Intel and many others.  In my eyes, it is simply a method for finding out more about the users of my applications so I can enhance their web-browsing experience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by caldjeff
Again, I think the problem is not that you're trying to be helpful, but the rather demeaning tone and blatant calling of something a "fact" that isn't truly a fact.  Your insight is usually quite helpful.  The "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude is not.

---