Re: Why Jami?

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

Iʼm glad to see you here, thus seeing that this m/l is not totally abandoned.

Adrien Béraud <address@hidden> wrote:
> Dmitry Alexandrov <address@hidden> wrote:
>> bill-auger <bill-auger@peers.community> wrote:
>>> FWIW, jami is also a SIP [soft-]phone
>>
>> Yes, but itʼs a legacy.
>
> SIP is not legacy and we commit to keep supporting it,

Okay, itʼs not, if you say so.

> However but we currently focus on Jami accounts

Yes, thanks, thatʼs what I meant to say.

> Server-based SIP is still fully supported.

Unfortunately, itʼs not easy to find not even a good manual, but just a brief 
overview of it: what exactly ‘fully supported’ means.

Itʼs pretty reasonable for an end user to expect a full-blown SIP client to 
contain certain features, which are technically not parts of the SIP proper: 
such as end-to-end encryption of media stream, which means support of ZRTP.

But Jami does not support ZRTP, does it?

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature