On Wed 29/Dec/2021 14:46:32 +0100 yuv wrote:
On Thu, 2021-12-23 at 21:02 -0700, Dave Warren via mailop wrote:
On 2021-12-18 08:39, yuv via mailop wrote:
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. >>
Among other things, the barrier to entry is higher with many/most
services verifying at least a phone number (and sometimes the
hardware itself).
Barriers to entry are not an exclusivity of centralized systems. In
fact, the complexity generated by independent actors contributing to
RFCs and operating internet email represent a much higher barrier to
entry than a tightly managed set of requirement under a single
authority who accepts any participant that submits to such requirements
without subverting them.
A difficult analogy. Authentication protocols do indeed generate complexity,
but they don't actually represent a barrier. In fact, spammmers adopted those
protocols quickly and often better than legitimate users. However, providing
authentication does not grant entry.
Reputation systems are the mythical lever that would turn authentication into a
barrier.
Embrace, Expand, Extinguish, anyone?
Microsoft had a working MAPI in the late 80s. It was loosely based on X.400.
Internet email became predominant over both, possibly because it was simpler.
Evolving rules by consensus is slower, but hey, look at W3C. What is
different in the governance of the web to governance of internet email?
They're both client/server protocols which can work on the Internet as well as
on any local TCP/IP network. Thus, there is no "governance" in a proper sense
but, as Bill pointed out, just protocol documentation. Note that web protocols
have evolved and generated much more complexity than email. After all, it was
the web which ignited the Internet boom of the late 90s.
The difference between them is that, although HTTP provides for put and post
verbs, the web evolved around clients downloading data from the servers, while
email dealed the opposite direction. The implication with respect to spam is
evident. Web spam can only occur for sites which accept data from
(authenticated) clients. The store and forward nature of SMTP precludes client
authentication at each hop. Had I to register and log in at your mail server
in order to send you a message, spam wouldn't be so ubiquitous.
Best
Ale
--
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
