On Tue, 09 May 2006 00:13:49 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 07:00:19PM -0400, Ed Tomlinson wrote: >> On Monday 08 May 2006 17:38, Caco Patane wrote: >> > > Why won't you simply use Frost ? Just make a channel to serve as >> > > your >> > >> > Because Frost is a message board and Freemail an e-mail >> > implementation? >> >> Actually he has a point. Yes Frost is a message board, but that does >> not mean the methods and protocals it uses are not usefull for freemail. >> The original suggestion here was use a private channel for a users >> inbox. This probably could be done using a subset of the frost code >> without any sort of gui - just a smtp and pop server. Image you start >> Freemail. It generates an address for you to tell friends about and >> tells your to save a private key. You configure your email client to >> talk to local host and the freemail address. The private key becomes >> your pop and smtp password. > > Freemail can have some level of co-operation with Frost but fundamentally > Frost and e-mail work differently.
Perhaps you should explain what the fundamental difference is on the Freenet ? The only way to deliver messages is to insert them under a guessable key and let the recipient to request them; there is no way to make these keys non-publically-readable, so if you want privacy, you'll need to crypt the messages (as Frost can do optionally). "Freemail" will simply re-implement what Frost does. It is not going to be fundamentally different, since Freenet does not currently or in the foreseeable future support any other communication methods. It just doesn't make any sense to replace a working communication tool with another one, when the only possible difference is a different GUI and reduced feature set. The Freenet project already has a chronic shortage of resources, it can't afford to waste them like that.
