On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 5/23/13 4:50 PM, Justin Uberti wrote: > > I just realized my statement could be parsed 2 different ways. To > > be clear: it is sad that spammers were more willing to adopt > > XMPP*than other IM networks were willing to*. Believe me, we > > tried. > > I completely agree! > > Ah, that makes a lot more sense, yes. Though I'd still point out that in terms of federating XMPP enterprises, and so on, there's a lot of domains which *could* federate. Some 15,000 Lync domains potentially, for instance. Don't you feel embarrassed that Microsoft is now better at open standards than Google in this area? :-) > It's interesting that open federation is taken for granted in email > (perhaps because people think it's always been that way, even though > it wasn't always that way), whereas it's a tough sell for anything > else (IM, voice, video, social networking, etc.). I still don't quite > understand why... > > I think email was different for three reasons: 1) Email came about mostly before the Internet took off - indeed, there's an argument that the Internet expansion was driven by email, not the other way around. This placed restrictions on how email could grow. 2) SMTP was chosen as the lowest common denominator; it's a gatewaying protocol at heart (as made obvious when you look at early design MTAs like sendmail). XMPP, however, has end-to-end properties, so it's harder to use for gatewaying to non-XMPP networks together. (Though people seem to manage fine) 3) The way advertising now operates (and it may very well change) relies on having as much personal and behavioural information on the subjects as possible - there's no incentive for networks to federate if they're consumer-grade and large enough, it's better for their advertising to be a walled garden.
