> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 2:56 PM, anders conbere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> I'm not sure this is necessary. Or at least I don't see much >> of a difference between a service that aliases your name >> "Anders Conbere" to your email address "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". > > Imagine that you're using a federated system like Identi.ca rather than a > walled-garden system like Twitter. Now, imagine that you subscribe to two > different people: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] (two people, same > local name). Given this, what would a message look like if it is delivered > to you via SMS? In that case, the alias "anders" wouldn't do you any good > since you wouldn't know *which* anders was responsible for the message. > Your > SMS server would be forced to expand the alias out to include the domain > in > order to allow you to show you who sent the message. But, in doing so, it > would lengthen the message and might, therefore, result in the message > growing to more than the maximum number of characters for an SMS > message... > So, your SMS system might have to cut off the end of the message and thus, > potentially lose important information. > > bob wyman >
I've read the whole thread and tried to understand the problem at hand but still failing. How is the use case above different from having two mobile numbers associated with your alias Anders? When replying you, as a user, make the decision to which number respond if you will. In any case if the user just hit reply, it'll go back to the SMS server that would know what was the originating service of the first message and thus would be able to route the response accordingly. - Sylvain -- Sylvain Hellegouarch http://www.defuze.org
