matrix-spec-proposals/proposals/2285-hidden-read-receipts.md

MSC2285: Private read receipts

Currently users must send read receipts in order to affect their notification counts, which alerts other people that the user has read their message. For primarily privacy reasons, it may be desirable to users to not advertise to others that they've read a message.

Proposal

This MSC proposes adding a new receiptType (see the receipts spec) of m.read.private. This receiptType is used when the user wants to affect their notification count but doesn't want other users to see their read receipt.

To move the user's private read receipt to $123 the client can make a POST request to the /receipt endpoint. For example:

POST /_matrix/client/v3/rooms/!a:example.org/receipt/m.read.private/$123
{}

The MSC also proposes adding m.fully_read and m.read.private as a possible receiptType for /receipt to make this endpoint consistent with /read_markers. (we have two endpoints that do essentially the same thing, so it would make sense for them to be consistent)

Alternatively, the client can move the user's m.fully_read marker and/or m.read receipt at the same time as m.read.private by making a POST request to the /read_markers endpoint. For example:

POST /_matrix/client/r0/rooms/!a:example.org/read_markers
{
    "m.fully_read": "$123",
    "m.read": "$123",
    "m.read.private": "$123"
}

Both m.read and m.read.private clear notifications in the same way. If the user sent two receipts into a room, the later one should be the one that decides the notification count.

The receipt that is more "ahead" of the other takes precedence when considering notifications and a client's rendering of read receipts. This means that given an ordered set of events A, B, C, and D the public read receipt could be at point C, private at point A. If the user moves the private receipt from A to B then the user's notification count is still considered from point C as the public receipt is further ahead, still. Other users would also see the user's public read receipt as not having moved. The user can then move the private read receipt to point D, hopping over the public receipt, to change their notification count.

For clarity, if the public receipt is "fast forwarded" to be at the same position as the private receipt then the public receipt is broadcast to other users, even if previously considered private.

Note that like regular read receipts today, neither receipt can cause a backwards movement: both receipts can only move forwards, but do not have to be ahead of each other. It's valid to, for example, update a public read receipt which lags 20 messages behind the private one.

The m.fully_read property is now optional for the /read_markers endpoint as sometimes we only want to send m.read.private.

The MSC proposes that from now on, not all things sent over /receipt are federated. Servers MUST NOT send receipts of receiptType m.read.private to any other user than the sender. Servers also MUST NOT send receipts of receiptType m.read.private to any server over federation.

Security considerations

Servers could act as if m.read.private is the same as m.read so the user must already trust the homeserver to a degree however, and the methods of notifying the user to the problem are difficult to implement. Users can always run their own homeservers to ensure it behaves correctly.

Potential issues

Clients which support read receipts would end up rendering the user's receipt as jumping down when they send a message. This is no different from how IRC and similarly bridged users are perceived today.

Alternatives

It has been suggested to use account data to store the setting that controls whether read receipts should be private on a per-account/per-room basis. While this might have some benefits, it is much less flexible.

Previous iterations of this MSC additionally suggested that having an m.hidden flag on existing read receipts could work, however this feels like assigning too much responsibility to an existing structure.

Unstable prefix

While this MSC is not considered stable, implementations should use org.matrix.msc2285 as a namespace.

Stable (post-FCP)	Unstable
m.read.private	org.matrix.msc2285.read.private

Clients should check for server support before sending private read receipts: if the server does not support them, then a private read receipt will not clear any notifications for the user.

The presence of org.matrix.msc2285 or org.matrix.msc2285.stable in unstable_features is a reliable indication that a server supports private read receipts; however the converse is not true: their absence does not necessarily mean that the server does not support private read receipts. In particular, the server may have been updated to a future spec version which includes private read receipts, and hence removed the unstable_features entry.

Therefore, if a client has this feature enabled, but the server does not advertise support for this MSC in unstable_features, the client should either keep sending private read receipts with the risk that notifications will not be clearing, or it should warn the user and start sending public read receipts instead.

To mitigate this problem, once this MSC gets merged and once it becomes a part of a spec version, clients should update their implementations as fast as possible to accommodate the fact that the way of detecting server support will change: clients will now be looking for that spec version in /versions.

While the MSC is unstable

During this period, to detect server support clients should check for the presence of the org.matrix.msc2285 flag in unstable_features on /versions. Clients are also required to use the unstable prefixes (see unstable prefix) during this time.

Once the MSC is merged but not in a spec version

Once this MSC is merged, but is not yet part of the spec, clients should rely on the presence of the org.matrix.msc2285.stable flag in unstable_features to determine server support. If the flag is present, clients are required to use stable prefixes (see unstable prefix).

Once the MSC is in a spec version

Once this MSC becomes a part of a spec version, clients should rely on the presence of the spec version, that supports the MSC, in versions on /versions, to determine support. Servers are encouraged to keep the org.matrix.msc2285.stable flag around for a reasonable amount of time to help smooth over the transition for clients. "Reasonable" is intentionally left as an implementation detail, however the MSC process currently recommends at most 2 months from the date of spec release.