D&C GLug - Home Page

[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]

Re: [LUG] OT: P2P crypto mail

 

On 10/10/13 00:27, Martijn Grooten wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Oct 2013, Simon Waters wrote:
>
>> Email is long overdue an overhaul
> 
> I've long argued against this. Spam, which many see as proof that email
> is broken, isn't a good argument for such an overhaul. Mass-surveillance
> may be, though I'm still not convinced.

I was actually thinking from a general technology perspective, it wasn't
terribly clever (just simple) to start with, and has accumulated a LOT
of extras. So much so it is almost certain your mail client supports
dross like uuencoding, 7 bit armoring, even dare I say "SMTP" (rather
than dialects of) and other stuff that almost certainly isn't needed,
and is either rarely used, or overused and wasteful.

As a result email is a huge cost to generate clients for, the
functionality is largely moribund (all those extras mean you can attach
a file a bazillion different ways, and it is less likely to be plain
text somewhere but it basically feels like it did before IP protocol
took over except you have a bigger network), because any radical change
has to be slowly evolved in.

Kind of hoping something like Google Wave would catch on, although
ideally federated. We are seeing a lot of experimenting, to the point
now where most of my interactions are not via email. Facebook, Twitter,
other micro-blogging, Skype, and other mostly proprietary formats are
taking the lion's share of my interactions. Although email still works
pretty well for this sort of discussion if people follow the
conventions. I don't think any single proprietary format will win out
because they are ultimately exclusive. There a some folk Facebook really
don't want, and they'll want to talk to people, possibly each other.

I agree on spam in that if you want to allow anyone to contact you with
no major hurdle or impediment you'll get spam. Even if there is a small
cost, like SMS, if the cost is below the message's worth people will pay
it. You can design systems to block spam easily, but they all throw the
baby out, as you can't then talk to someone without an introduction (or
some other big barrier being crossed). You can move the costs of spam
somewhat by designing systems like DJB did where the message is kept by
the sender, but that has other drawbacks.

-- 
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list
FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq