On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 19:04:57 +0100 Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu 24 Jun 2021 at 18:41:56 -0400, Celejar wrote: > > > On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 21:03:28 +0100 > > Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > On Thu 24 Jun 2021 at 14:04:13 -0400, Celejar wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 01:25:37 +0300 > > > > Andrei POPESCU <andreimpope...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mi, 23 iun 21, 17:12:07, Michael Grant wrote: > > > > > > > Apparently the lines are blurry enough for you to include Signal > > > > > > > in that > > > > > > > list. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why? Not blurry at all. Signal is just as closed a system as > > > > > > WhatsApp. Maybe more private, but unless you know something I > > > > > > don't, > > > > > > Signal doesn't talk to anything other than other Signal. Puppeted > > > > > > bridges are not interoperability, as far as I am aware, all users > > > > > > still need to be on Signal. > > > > > > > > > > You seem to be using a completely different meaning of 'proprietary' > > > > > (no > > > > > federation) than I do (closed source software, proprietary protocol > > > > > that > > > > > must be reversed engineered, patents, etc.). > > > > > > > > Well, Michael's original post that you challenged contrasted: > > > > > > > > > a standards based system such as mail or the web and a proprietary > > > > > system such as facebook, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, etc etc. > > > > > > > > Would you call Signal "a standards based system?" I understand that the > > > > software itself is open source, and the project does publish various > > > > "Signal Protocal" libraries, but I'm not sure that's quite enough to > > > > call it "standards based." > > > > > > Michael was desperately trying to sustain his argument that > > > > > > > email is NOT gmail and let's not forget this. > > > > > Gmail is standards-based. I expext Signal is too; otherwise it would not > > > > Is there a published, readily available, complete description of Gmail's > > behavior? > > It's described in the same document dealing also with Yahoo, gmx and > Zoho :). I expect they have read and taken notice of the RFCs. > > > > work. > > > > ? Are you asserting that any software that works is necessarily > > standards-based? If so, you must have a very different definition of > > standards-based from mine. > > I wouldn't want to generalise to that extent. However, your mail made > it to LDO and was then delivered to me. Gmail must be doing something > right and standards-based. > > > > standrds-bsaed != free. No one's denying that Gmail *mostly* follows email standards; the criticism is that they sometimes deviate from these standards, in undocumented and often frustrating ways. This may not affect your use case; that does not mean that it isn't frustrating to others. > > That's true, of course. > > It is perfectly possible to send and receive mail via gmail without > ever encountering its web interface. That's no different from any > other ISP. Yes, I access Gmail almost exclusively via POP3 and IMAP. And the clients I use have special workarounds and warnings for Gmail: https://getmail6.org/faq.html#faq-notabug-gmail-bug https://www.ubuntubuzz.com/2017/06/how-to-setup-sylpheed-for-gmail-imap-client.html Celejar
