On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 12:49 PM Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
again, i'd say there's a lot of tilting at windmills still and not a lot of requirements list, that could be matched against both the current capabilities/misses and placement in the layer hierarchy.
So what?
The arguments in this thread are the reason I am not going to bother trying to fix SMTP. Why on earth would I want to try to work with a group of people who show no interest in the user's actual needs, react to every issue with denial, propose as solutions use of technology 99% of users do not understand and have no interest in learning, yet somehow think that the starting point for any idea should be 'how do we make this happen in our scheme'.
Also, the tribesplaining and the condescension is rather wearing to say the least.
I have been doing this work for three decades now. I have helped to build very large infrastructures that people use every day. None of the objections being raised is new to me or something I have not considered at considerable length.
Some people do get it. Some of the people who do get it are people whose opinions are very highly rated in this community. Can you guess why they are not interested in discussing them here? Given the way people see fit to respond to my ideas, are people surprised that the IETF tends to be avoided by people with new ideas? How long do people think an institution can survive if the response to every proposal to do something new is 'we tried that in 1543 and there was no demand for it'.
Oh and given the amount of cryptography it takes to do PKI right in the Mesh, there is absolutely no way it was feasible as a user facing infrastructure until 2005. While the Mesh does run fine on a Raspberry Pi, that machine is much faster than the mainframe class machines in 1995.
I am not going to try to save SMTP because what matters to me is preserving the open connectivity that SMTP and the telephone network provide. It is the openness that is valuable, not the implementation.
