I think on the administrative level, technically speaking, one could consider traditional mailservers or newsgroups servers (usenet) as P2P, but the end-user is not on the same plane.
How wrong am i ? :)
Regards
Florent
On 11/9/06, Tien Tuan Anh Dinh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
Hi,
Im taking a step back and looking at the real definition of P2P. Shriky
in his article
(http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2000/11/24/shirky1-whatisp2p.html)
defined P2P as a system that take advantage of computer at the edge of
the Internet. Two important properties are: treating temporary/variable
connections as norm and nodes have some autonomy.
He explained why Jabber, ICQ and Napster are P2P. I agree. But i am not
convinced by his explanation of Email not being P2P!!!: "if you drop AOL
in favor of another ISP, your AOL email address disappears as well,
because it hangs off DNS". Isn't an email address not much different
from your nickname on Jabber, ICQ or any other IM systems ? How about
web-based email ? I didn't see any violation of the two properties
stated above: users can of course leave the network at will, and he can
do anything he wants with his Pc.
Please could anyone point out my misunderstanding here.
Regards,
Anh
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
_______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
