On 8/27/13 7:45 PM, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 21:33:01 +0000 radi...@gmail.com wrote: >> Iang wrote: >> >>> Why do we need the 1980s assumption of >being able to send freely >>> to everyone, anyway? >> >> tech.supp...@i.bought.your.busted.thing.com is one that comes to >> mind. i...@sale.me.your.thing.com is another. I think the types of >> "prior whitelist only" secure systems being discussed on-list here >> lately will in the long run win out with the lions share of >> messages, but that bog standard 'dirty' email will persist for >> commercial interactions of the type I list above. > > On the other hand, tech.support@sillycompany could just accept all > contact requests, at least temporarily.
Realistically they all have a web-based contact form these days anyway. Similarly, they all have live web-based chat systems that don't require opening up more broadly. HTTP is the new TCP and all that. For truly federated communication (BigRetailer wants its employees to exchange messages with smaller companies in its supply chain), a more open technology is needed, but we have those for email and IM. However, we're off-topic for what's truly important here: not enterprise email and IM, but secure technologies for individuals. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ _______________________________________________ The cryptography mailing list cryptography@metzdowd.com http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
