Beeper Double Puppeting Issue Troubleshooting And Solutions

Hey guys! Let's dive into a tricky issue some of us have been facing with Beeper and double puppeting. Double puppeting, for those not in the know, is super important because it makes messages you send from a bridged service appear as if they're coming directly from your Matrix account. This makes conversations way less confusing. But what happens when it doesn't work? Let's explore this problem, the attempts to fix it, and what alternatives we can consider.

The Double Puppeting Dilemma with Beeper

Understanding the Core Issue

So, the main problem? Double puppeting isn't playing nice with Beeper when using a custom Hostex bridge. Imagine sending a message from Hostex, but instead of showing up in Matrix as your message, it appears as if it's from the bridge bot, specifically @sh-hostexbot:beeper.local. This can be a real headache, especially when trying to keep track of who said what in a conversation. It's like having a conversation with a friend but every time you speak, your message gets attributed to a third person – confusing, right?

When implemented correctly, double puppeting should ensure that messages sent from Hostex appear in Matrix as sent messages (outgoing). This mimics the behavior of other bridges like mautrix-signal, where your messages seamlessly integrate into your Matrix chats as if you sent them directly from Matrix. This creates a much cleaner and more intuitive user experience. The goal is to eliminate the confusion caused by messages appearing to originate from a bot rather than the user themselves. This seamless integration is crucial for a smooth communication flow, making it easier to follow conversations and differentiate between your own messages and those from others.

Expected vs. Actual Behavior

Ideally, when a message is sent from Hostex, it should pop up in Matrix as a sent message, just like when you type something directly into Matrix. Think of it as a mirror reflecting your actions perfectly. However, the current reality is quite different. Instead of seeing your own messages, they're showing up as received messages from the bridge bot (@sh-hostexbot:beeper.local). This makes it difficult to distinguish between messages you've sent and messages from other users, which kinda defeats the purpose of having a bridge in the first place. Imagine you're having a crucial discussion, and you have to constantly double-check if a message is yours or just the bot relaying someone else's – frustrating, to say the least. This discrepancy between expected and actual behavior is the core of the issue, and addressing it is essential for a more user-friendly experience.

Attempts to Solve the Double Puppeting Problem

1. The Standard Double Puppeting Implementation

The first attempt involved implementing the standard double puppeting method. The code was set up so that messages from the host would use double puppeting to appear as sent by the Matrix user. Here's a snippet of the code used:

if msg.SenderRole == "host" {
    // Host message - use double puppeting to show as sent by the actual Matrix user
    senderID = "" // Empty senderID with isFromMe=true enables double puppeting
    isFromMe = true
} else {
    // Guest message
    senderID = networkid.UserID("guest_" + conversationID)
    isFromMe = false
}

The idea was that if msg.SenderRole was "host", the senderID would be emptied, and isFromMe would be set to true, triggering double puppeting. The configuration also included settings for double_puppet, specifying the Beeper server and secrets:

double_puppet:
    servers:
        beeper.com: https://matrix.beeper.com
    allow_discovery: true
    secrets:
        beeper.com: as_token:hua_QHZND3dMVOa6otDyIgkkZmz2g91uriCLR0NbBcVh2No1uP4ICcBO5_0PNkzb

Despite this setup, the messages continued to appear from the bridge bot, indicating that the standard implementation wasn't working as expected. This was a crucial first step, though, because it confirmed that the initial approach, which works in many other contexts, wasn't sufficient for Beeper's environment. It highlighted the need to explore alternative solutions tailored specifically to Beeper's infrastructure.

2. Trying an Alternative Appservice Token Configuration

Next up, an alternative configuration was tested by directly using the appservice token in the secrets. This approach was aimed at bypassing any potential issues with the standard server configuration and directly authenticating the double puppeting mechanism.

double_puppet:
    secrets:
        beeper.com: as_token:hua_QHZND3dMVOa6otDyIgkkZmz2g91uriCLR0NbBcVh2No1uP4ICcBO5_0PNkzb

Unfortunately, this attempt didn't change the behavior. Messages still showed up as coming from the bridge bot. This suggested that the issue wasn't just about the server configuration but possibly a deeper problem with how Beeper's infrastructure handles appservice tokens in the context of double puppeting. It also reinforced the idea that a more fundamental solution was needed, rather than just tweaking configuration parameters. This trial underscored the complexity of the issue and the need for a more comprehensive investigation.

3. Manual Double Puppeting with User Access Token

In a more hands-on approach, a user provided their Matrix access token to see if manual intervention could solve the problem. The idea was to use the user's own token to authenticate the messages, effectively impersonating the user directly within the Matrix environment.

The user provided their Matrix access token, which looked something like this:

syt_a2VpdGhhaA_HscYpNTfxWatTIDLfptC_0ODAbm

To verify the token's validity, it was tested via browser dev tools:

> mxMatrixClientPeg.get().getAccessToken()
< "syt_a2VpdGhhaA_HscYpNTfxWatTIDLfptC_0ODAbm"

However, when the bridge attempted to use this token, it ran into an authentication error. The Beeper Matrix server rejected the user's token, throwing an M_UNKNOWN_TOKEN error with an HTTP 401 status code, indicating an invalid access token.

Failed to enable double puppeting: M_UNKNOWN_TOKEN (HTTP 401): Invalid access token

This result was significant. It indicated that Beeper's Matrix server actively rejects the use of user access tokens by custom bridges, a strong signal that Beeper might have specific restrictions in place for double puppeting with third-party integrations. This restriction is a key piece of the puzzle, suggesting a deliberate design choice by Beeper to control how double puppeting is implemented on their platform. This also highlighted the need to understand Beeper's specific requirements and authentication methods for custom bridges.

4. Comparing with Working Bridges

To gain further insight, the user confirmed that mautrix-signal, an officially supported bridge, works correctly on Beeper. This meant that Signal messages sent by the user appeared as sent messages in Matrix, without any separate bridge bot messages. This stark contrast prompted an analysis of how mautrix-signal achieves this seamless integration.

The key observation was that Beeper supports double puppeting for its officially supported bridges, such as mautrix-signal, but might be limiting this functionality for custom bridges. This was a crucial clue. The working example of mautrix-signal suggested that double puppeting is possible on Beeper, but it might require specific configurations or authentication methods that are not readily available or documented for custom bridges. This comparison underscored the possibility that Beeper has a tiered system, where official bridges receive special treatment or access to certain APIs that custom bridges do not.

Diving into the Technical Details

Bridge Configuration

Let's get down to the nitty-gritty. The bridge is built on the mautrix-go bridgev2 framework and is hosted on the Beeper platform, using the beeper.local domain. The connection is established via Websocket through hungryserv, and authentication is managed by the Beeper bridge-manager with bbctl registration. This setup is pretty standard for a Matrix bridge, but the devil is often in the details.

The framework used, mautrix-go bridgev2, is known for its flexibility and robustness. However, even with a solid framework, specific configurations can make or break the double puppeting feature. The homeserver is configured to use Beeper's infrastructure, and the use of Websocket via hungryserv is a common approach for real-time communication. The Beeper bridge-manager and bbctl registration indicate a managed bridge environment, which might introduce additional layers of complexity or restrictions.

Beeper Integration Details

Here’s a peek at the Beeper integration configuration:

homeserver:
    address: https://matrix.beeper.com/_hungryserv/keithah
    domain: beeper.local
    websocket: true

appservice:
    id: 49f51652-4b8b-4f7d-927f-4b9f5c98e5b1
    bot:
        username: sh-hostexbot
    as_token: "hua_QHZND3dMVOa6otDyIgkkZmz2g91uriCLR0NbBcVh2No1uP4ICcBO5_0PNkzb"
    hs_token: "huh_XNiW227vEBxhYyO9ohOpNs9HbCuSIRKN6LVEJc7Xcr36vUhK87Top_jsYi91"

This configuration provides essential details such as the homeserver address, domain, and Websocket settings. The appservice section defines the bridge's identity, including its ID, bot username, and tokens. The as_token and hs_token are critical for authentication and authorization within the Matrix ecosystem. These tokens are the keys that allow the bridge to interact with the Matrix homeserver. However, as the previous attempts showed, simply having these tokens doesn't guarantee double puppeting functionality. There might be additional steps or requirements specific to Beeper's infrastructure that need to be addressed.

Bridge Registration

The bridge was registered using bbctl register sh-hostex, with the namespace sh-hostex_* for users and the bot user @sh-hostexbot:beeper.local. This registration process is crucial for the bridge to be recognized and authorized by the Matrix homeserver. The namespace defines the user IDs that the bridge is allowed to manage, and the bot user acts as the bridge's representative within Matrix.

However, even with proper registration, the double puppeting issue persists. This suggests that the registration process itself isn't the bottleneck. Instead, the problem likely lies in how the bridge interacts with Beeper's homeserver after registration, particularly in how it authenticates and sends messages on behalf of users. The fact that messages are being sent through the bot account indicates that the double puppeting mechanism is not being correctly activated, even though the bridge is otherwise functioning correctly.

Root Cause Analysis: The Beeper Restriction Hypothesis

After all the testing and analysis, the most likely culprit is that Beeper's Matrix infrastructure restricts double puppeting capabilities for custom/third-party bridges. While Beeper's own bridges, like mautrix-signal, can pull off the double puppeting magic, it seems custom bridges are stuck with standard appservice functionality. This means messages sent through custom bridges are likely to be treated differently, possibly due to security or architectural considerations on Beeper's end.

Evidence Supporting This Theory:

1. Code is correct: The bridge is using the standard mautrix double puppeting patterns that other working bridges use. This eliminates the possibility of a simple coding error.
2. Configuration follows examples: The double puppet configuration matches examples from other working bridges. This suggests that the configuration itself is not the issue.
3. Token rejection: The user's access token is rejected when the bridge tries to use it. This is a major red flag, indicating that Beeper is actively preventing custom bridges from using user tokens for double puppeting.
4. Official bridges work: mautrix-signal successfully implements double puppeting on Beeper. This proves that double puppeting is possible on Beeper, but likely only through specific channels or methods.
5. No documentation: Beeper doesn't offer clear documentation for custom bridge double puppeting. The lack of official guidance suggests that this feature may not be fully supported or intended for general use.

Exploring Possible Solutions: What Can We Do?

Option 1: Reaching Out to Beeper Support

This is a crucial first step. Creating a support ticket and clearly explaining the double puppeting limitation can bring the issue to Beeper's attention. Requesting documentation or assistance specifically for custom bridge double puppeting might uncover hidden configurations or methods. Also, it's worth asking if there's an alternative authentication method for custom bridges that we might be missing. Communication is key to understanding Beeper's policies and potential workarounds.

Option 2: Tweaking the Message Display Strategy

If double puppeting isn't immediately achievable, we can focus on improving the user experience through alternative visual cues. Modifying the bridge to use different indicators for host vs. guest messages, such as color-coding or unique icons, can help users distinguish between message sources. Using message content prefixes, like "[Host]" or "[You]", can also provide clarity. Implementing custom Matrix event types that clients could potentially handle differently opens up more advanced display options. The goal here is to make it as easy as possible for users to understand the origin of each message, even if they're not directly sent as the user themselves.

Option 3: Venturing Beyond Beeper with a Different Homeserver

To further isolate the issue, testing the bridge with a standard Matrix homeserver like Synapse or Dendrite is a good idea. Implementing proper double puppeting configuration for these non-Beeper servers can help confirm that the code and configurations are fundamentally sound. Documenting the differences in functionality between Beeper and standard homeservers can also provide valuable insights and inform future development efforts. This comparative testing can help determine if the issue is specific to Beeper's environment or a more general problem with the bridge implementation.

Option 4: Rethinking the Bridge Architecture

This is a more involved approach but might yield significant long-term benefits. Investigating if there's a different way to structure the bridge registration process could uncover alternative pathways for enabling double puppeting. Researching if Beeper has specific requirements for double puppeting support, such as specific API calls or authentication flows, is crucial. Considering a hybrid approach with relay functionality might provide a workaround, where messages are relayed through a different service that supports double puppeting. This option requires a deep dive into Beeper's infrastructure and the intricacies of Matrix bridging.

A Call to the Community: Your Input Matters!

Hey, has anyone out there managed to successfully implement double puppeting for custom bridges on Beeper? We're all ears! Are there specific configuration tricks or authentication methods that we might be overlooking? Sharing your experiences and insights can help us crack this nut and make the bridge even better for everyone.

Environment Details: The Setup We're Working With

For those technically inclined, here are the details of our setup:

• Bridge Version: Current main branch
• mautrix-go Version: v0.24.2
• Matrix Homeserver: Beeper (beeper.local)
• Connection Method: Websocket via bridge-manager
• User Domain: @keithah:beeper.com

Log Snippets: A Glimpse Behind the Scenes

Here's a snippet from the bridge logs, showing successful message processing but no double puppeting activation:

{
  "level": "debug",
  "bridge_evt_type": "RemoteEventMessage", 
  "sender_role": "host",
  "remote_sender": {
    "user_id": "",
    "sender_login": "hostex_zdBp6dId", 
    "is_from_me": true
  }
}

Despite is_from_me: true, messages stubbornly appear from the bridge bot. This log entry is a classic example of the problem we're facing. The bridge recognizes that the message should be treated as if it's from the user, but the double puppeting mechanism isn't kicking in. This discrepancy further strengthens the hypothesis that Beeper's infrastructure is the key factor.

Wrapping Up: The Road Ahead

Note: This issue significantly impacts the user experience, making it hard to tell your own messages apart from those of others. Your guidance and solutions are super important to us. Let's work together to solve this puzzle!