I think you did not understand. If a user enters a DML in the new client he has a GUI to do so and the client knows, it's a DML. If I create one, I need to generate a deterministic address first. How do I tell the client now, that this is a DML address if it is already in the identities list? or is now technically every address a DML?
No you don't. You would go to File> Join/Create chan. Then select create a new chan and type in the chan name/passphrase. The only difference between a regular address and a distributed address is distribution. You could operate a non deterministic address as a distributed address if you wanted.
What is too complicated with "I am in DML 'SomeName' three one zero"?
I never said complicated, you have twice now. The majority of users are going to be able to copy paste the address name from where ever they saw/found it. So copying 1 address and entering in the passphrase (and receiving verification of joining the correct chan) is much better than having 5 data fields (old method) that you could potentially screw up and not know that you screwed up until it doesn't work but you wouldn't know it didn't work for a non-short amount of time.
Think about it (for a DML with the name 'bin'):
currently you need this: BIN;BM-2D7wXW8b9hCKcMTtKSHcvyN4oFaHAV342w
I would need this: BIN;3;1;0
You don't have to, but to insure that you are joining the correct chan yes. It also ensures a foolproof entry method since it alerts you to the wrong address or name/phrase. phrases/names are case sensitive so you would have to use "bin" not "BIN". If that is your argument (that 1 bitmessage address is too complicated to enter) then we might as well have readable addresses and hostnames. Think about how people already enter in addresses to bitmessage, the same would happen for chans.
you tell me, what is more error proof and there you probably make more mistakes when typing manually. Also the current system does not allows me to use the X'th address from a passphrase, invalidating this: https://bitmessage.org/forum/index.php/topic,2568.msg4379.html#msg4379
Well maybe if I typed like that
Copy paste is your friend. Then again, this is not an issue with the method but bitmessage addresses in general so let's start a different thread for that if you'd like. Not currently, I am curious as to why that functionality would be needed? It is not a limitation of bitmessage, but is it worth coding for any uses it may serve versus the complication it may add to users?
In states where Encryption is outlawed you get 'illegal' encrypted stuff (for example bitmessage.exe) over radio transmission. When done correctly it sounds like white noise. I do this too sometimes to communicate encrypted over radio or phone.
It is illegal to send encrypted data over amateur radio (assuming that is what you are referring to) with one exception not applying to us. I'll refer back up to the argument about this being more about bitmessage addresses than the official support of chans.