On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 3:14 PM Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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?
Requirements make it easier to discuss solutions or direction.
It's also easier to see which parts of those requirements do/don't work in today's world.
I don't think SMTP is specific to the discussion, actually.
<snip>
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.
I don't think 'save smtp' is required, but if your discussion is spread all over the various layers of 'messaging'
and references particular things in 'email' that you dislike, or are aiming to solve, or believe are anathema to
a functioning solution you are going to get some rebuttal in the form: "Well, not quite? you CAN do this/that in <existing protocol>..."
If the discussion was a bit more like:
"It would be great if a system that offers:
"It would be great if a system that offers:
0) a system to be used in sending/receiving messages between parties
1) strong guarantees that Alice is the Alice I mean
1) strong guarantees that Alice is the Alice I mean
2) limitations on whom/what can contact me
3) prevention of intercept/inspection (except where required) of messages in transit
4) prevention of inspection of messages at rest
5) ability to have an open specification for transport, message-format, addressing, and message storage
6) other things
These things are not all solved in today's messaging systems <examples which are relevant>
I think these things would be beneficial because....<reasons>"
it might have been a little easier to have a conversation about this...
