On 11 November 2015 at 10:19, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11 Nov 2015, at 10:06, Tomasz Sterna <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dnia 2015-11-10, wto o godzinie 17:10 -0600, Sam Whited pisze: > >>> What do you suggest to replace it with? > >> > >> I suggest we replace it with nothing. > > > > Closing the network is not the answer. > > People need a way of joining the network. > > There is a world of difference between ‘closing the network’ and ‘not > having a single, unprotected mechanism for registration that turns a server > into an open relay’. > > I think I'm largely sympathetic to Tomasz's concerns here. IBR, for all its flaws, does provide a relatively good onboarding process, albeit the user starts by knowing what server they want. Removing this makes that much more painful. > > If we deprecate the existing widely deployed standards, people will > > come up with own ways of doing things. > > Yes. Account registration is obviously needed in practical terms. Whether > it’s needed to be standardised is another matter. > > I think it probably does. We want a user to get from a standing start to having their client configured with a new account as seamlessly as possible. I suspect this means we need a simple mechanism for locating and registering on servers, and then some sane guidance on how to verify those accounts in some way prior to full activation. I have no idea what all this means in detail, but it might even mean we keep '77 and simply don't allow them to send messages initially, until they've verified their email address by clicking on a link, or whatever. > > I'm afraid this will lead to further fragmentation of the network. > > This is one of the few cases where not having a single, exploitable > mechanism is a good thing. > > Not entirely convinced that a single *exploitable* mechanism is ever a good thing... > /K
