# It would be nice if the clients were aware of each other, e.g. for history sync **URL:** \ **Category:** Feature Proposal\ **Created:** [May 24, 2026, 12:50pm UTC](https://forum.delta.chat/t/it-would-be-nice-if-the-clients-were-aware-of-each-other-e-g-for-history-sync/5298 "2026-05-24T12:50:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ell1e](https://forum.delta.chat/user_avatar/forum.delta.chat/ell1e/32/2308_2.png) [@ell1e](https://forum.delta.chat/u/ell1e)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2026, 12:50pm UTC](https://forum.delta.chat/t/it-would-be-nice-if-the-clients-were-aware-of-each-other-e-g-for-history-sync/5298/1 "2026-05-24T12:50:47Z")
It would be nice if the clients were aware of each other, e.g. for history synchronization. I have a device that I regularly need to delete all profiles from and then use a new backup, simply because the device is online so irregularly that it’ll miss the window where the messages are still available via IMAP. But the other devices still _have_ that history. If they just connected to each other using iroh or the like and figured that out, I imagine all of this could become a non-issue. (I realize in practice this might be fairly complicated to implement, especially since e.g. a message explicitly deleted shouldn’t accidentally be restored from some device that was offline during the deletion event.) I’m not saying it would be worth your time to implement, but I feel like it’s at least worth bringing up as something that would solve real user problems. ---
**Author:** ![Minim](https://forum.delta.chat/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ccd318/32.png) [@Minim](https://forum.delta.chat/u/Minim)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2026, 2:11pm UTC](https://forum.delta.chat/t/it-would-be-nice-if-the-clients-were-aware-of-each-other-e-g-for-history-sync/5298/2 "2026-05-24T14:11:30Z")
This sounds good in principle but at the moment it seems like it would make avoiding IP leaks in multi-device mode nearly impossible. Maybe clients could offer messages via IMAP, with dummy data to replace lost headers? ---
**Author:** ![WofWca](https://forum.delta.chat/user_avatar/forum.delta.chat/wofwca/32/1702_2.png) [@WofWca](https://forum.delta.chat/u/WofWca)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2026, 2:26pm UTC](https://forum.delta.chat/t/it-would-be-nice-if-the-clients-were-aware-of-each-other-e-g-for-history-sync/5298/3 "2026-05-24T14:26:04Z")
> [@Minim](#): > > but at the moment it seems like it would make avoiding IP leaks in multi-device mode nearly impossible. Not sure what you mean here. IP leaking how? We already have “Add second device” which works over the local network (Wi-Fi), no internet needed. We can have the same thing but automatic. If the devices need to re-discover each other in the local network, they may pass each other’s IPs over email (similar to how calls work, except no need to use a TURN / STUN server if they’re on the same Wi-Fi). ---
**Author:** ![Raiden](https://forum.delta.chat/user_avatar/forum.delta.chat/raiden/32/2544_2.png) [@Raiden](https://forum.delta.chat/u/Raiden)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2026, 2:49pm UTC](https://forum.delta.chat/t/it-would-be-nice-if-the-clients-were-aware-of-each-other-e-g-for-history-sync/5298/4 "2026-05-24T14:49:25Z")
The fact that clients are unaware of one another also poses a security risk, as DC-Desktop does not prompt for a password when creating a backup or adding an additional device. Furthermore, many users are likely unaware of this issue, as they believe a profile can only run on two devices simultaneously. Therefore it would make sense to rename the “_Add Second Device_” feature to “_Add Additional Device_.” This is a very simple measure that could help raise security awareness. Furthermore, the ability to use one profile on an unlimited number of devices is a great feature that many other messengers lack. It shouldn’t be hidden. ---
**Author:** ![ell1e](https://forum.delta.chat/user_avatar/forum.delta.chat/ell1e/32/2308_2.png) [@ell1e](https://forum.delta.chat/u/ell1e)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2026, 3:00pm UTC](https://forum.delta.chat/t/it-would-be-nice-if-the-clients-were-aware-of-each-other-e-g-for-history-sync/5298/5 "2026-05-24T15:00:27Z")
> [@WofWca](#): > > if they’re on the same Wi-Fi For my use case it would be completely sufficient if they only synced each other while on the same wifi. Although I assume other people may have a different opinion here. ---
**Author:** ![Minim](https://forum.delta.chat/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/ccd318/32.png) [@Minim](https://forum.delta.chat/u/Minim)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2026, 1:27pm UTC](https://forum.delta.chat/t/it-would-be-nice-if-the-clients-were-aware-of-each-other-e-g-for-history-sync/5298/6 "2026-05-25T13:27:32Z")
If it went over the local net or by e-mail then my objection is moot; it’s Iroh that I think currently leaks IPs. ---
**Author:** ![ell1e](https://forum.delta.chat/user_avatar/forum.delta.chat/ell1e/32/2308_2.png) [@ell1e](https://forum.delta.chat/u/ell1e)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2026, 12:44am UTC](https://forum.delta.chat/t/it-would-be-nice-if-the-clients-were-aware-of-each-other-e-g-for-history-sync/5298/7 "2026-05-31T00:44:31Z")
I agree perhaps limiting it to same local network only might have security benefits for this functionality - if it is ever added at all.