On Sat, 2021-12-18 at 15:13 +0100, Alexey Shpakovsky via mailop wrote: > On Sat, December 18, 2021 13:50, yuv via mailop wrote: > > What makes the difference between [the smoothly running messaging > > systems] and internet email? > > I believe answer is centralization and to some extent lack of > backwards compatibility requirement.
what is it that centralization brings to those systems? after all, they also consists of numerous independent parties communicating with one another over electronic devices, exactly like internet email. > When you're one company controlling both backend and all frontend This is the undesirable feature of centralization, I think we can all agree on that. But what are the desirable features of centralization, and can they be breaken out and applied to a decentralized world? Let's start: Front end: * undesirable: dictated device, sometimes only available from selected vendors on selected platform (the walled garden, though for Apple/iMessage it has apparently already achieved sufficient network effect for the company to start allowing its captives to invite non- Apple devices to the conversation) * desirable: implement ONE SET OF RIGID (but can change over time), INTEROPERABLE, SIMPLE, SPECIFICATIONS. Back end: * undesirable: single controlling entity * desirable: ONE SET OF RIGID (but can change over time) INTEROPERABLE, SIMPLE, SPECIFICATIONS. Ecosystem: * desirable: CLOSED TO ABUSE SOURCES (and no one should be big enough to tolerate abuse from their network, including Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and any other cloud provider) * undesirable: CLOSED TO ALTERNATIVE Front and Back ends. Uncompetitive * desirable: OPEN TO ALTERNATIVE as long as they implement the exact rigid specification. (Competitive, without allowing for uncontrolled feature creep, or in other words no Embrace, Extend, Extinguish) * desirable: CLOSED PROTOCOL SPECIFICATION, subject to strict change control Care to continue? > And who on this list haven't thought: "oh, I wish this part of email > spec was different"?! The thinking is legit. It is the process of addressing that thinking that has failed. Too often, change is adopted for the sake of change. See the recently proposal for DKIM-QR on this list. Just because QR codes have been made popular by vaccine passport, it does not mean that we have to rush to implement them everywhere and for everything. Same with blockchain previously. But fashion is irresistible and when I have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. > Email openness is both blessing (when any person can implement an > email client however they like) and a curse (when any spammer can > implement an email client...). Because the protocol's implementation is not the appropriate place to deal with spammer, and this is one of the major driving forces that has pushed internet email to the point of breakage. The protocol should be open to read, but under strict change control. Implementation of the protocol should be open to anyone. Bad actors should be kept out not by preventing them to implement the protocol, but by preventing them from joining the network. The network must be open only to actors that adhere strictily to the rules. This includes operators AND end-users. > Worth mention however, that I've seen spam on other messaging > platforms, too, and a black market for Telegram accounts being > mentioned, and people developing anti-spam solutions for not-so-big > public Telegram groups... Of course, if one thing is not changing, it is human nature, and any communication platform large enough will attract scumbags. Keeping scumbugs at bay must be central to the protocol design (or evolution). SPF/DKIM/DMARC have all failed at that. They have made life more difficult for the legitimate user and they are better mastered by the spammers than by the legitimate users. The platform has been overtaken by marketers. I am disgusted when I see a recommendation (by Microsoft) to craft emails in HTML format to make them more deliverable. To me, HTML is a hallmark of marketing email that I do not care a damn about, and the messengers protocols are much better at that. To me, internet email should not try to become like the messenger protocols: it is a losing competition, partly because of the legacy baggage. To me, internet email should refocus on what it was meant to be in its original design: a way to send/receive PASSIVE CONTENT, without the tracking/spying bugs and other active/dynamic elements that advertisers so covet and spammers abuse. On Sat, 2021-12-18 at 15:42 +0100, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote: > Dnia 18.12.2021 o godz. 07:50:19 yuv via mailop pisze: > > > Sadly, in recent years - mostly because of the actions of the "big > guys", I will hold on to my opinion on that - email has steered > towards becoming a similar group of independent, non-interoperable > services It may be the "big guys" that have poured energy into Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. However, the way I see it is that internet email is suffering death by committee. It is in the RFCs, and the long list of names contributing to them. The "big guys" are part of it, but they are small in number compared to everyone else. > As I understand this, we here on this list are working to keep up the > interoperability of email, but this becomes more and more difficult I wish your understanding is correct. I am cynical enough to suspect that many here on this list are working for their own interest/agenda. Spammers are the ones that implement best the alphabet soup of DKIM/DMARC/whatever else. The "big guys" that are such a lightning rod for you are here for their business, not for interoperability, and their anti-competitive practices are obvious to many, just not enough present to legislators and competition / antitrust authorities in the relevant countries. > It will probably sooner or later end so that you > would have to be on Gmail to communicate with Gmail users and the > same for other services. Yes, this is the trajectory, sadly. And as one wise man (whose political ideas I do not share) once said (and I herewith adapt to the circumstances): if I want to talk to you, I will speak your language/protocol ABER wenn Sie mit mir sprechen wollen, muessen Sie Deutsch/my protocol sprechen. -- Yuval Levy, JD, MBA, CFA Ontario-licensed lawyer _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
