E-mail is the Universal Platform

Post by jonmrodriguez » Thu, Jan 05, 2012, 6:11 AM UTC

hammock wrote: post #35

hammock wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your dislike of spam, but what's the rationale behind building in the filtration into the architecture? That's merely a constraint on what email already offers, not an evolution. Right now spam filtration is decentralized (as it should be), and there's NOTHING stopping an email provider like Gmail or Hotmail or [fill in your new startup] from CHARGING senders a fee to actually deliver mail to your person…

By the way, if there WAS a centralized spam filtration somewhere, as you seem to be proposing, there would still be "a giant" snooping everyone's mail. Or did you not realize that.

Post by blueplastic » Thu, Jan 05, 2012, 7:05 AM UTC

jonmrodriguez wrote: post #42

hammock wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the way, if there WAS a centralized spam filtration somewhere, as you seem to be proposing, there would still be "a giant" snooping everyone's mail. Or did you not realize that.

hammock, blueplastic didn't say to centralize spam filtration. He said to make messages cost money, thus making spamming unprofitable. This is totally different from the machine-learned-model-reads-all-my-mail situation that we have now AND totally different from a centralized Big Brother antispam agency.

Post by est » Thu, Jan 05, 2012, 7:35 AM UTC

bane wrote: post #33

I'm almost convinced at this point if somebody simply built a facebook like interface, and used email as the messaging protocol, but didn't display it like an email, more like a FB conversation (as opposed to a threaded or gmail-like conversation view), that it would be used. There's not really much that's offered by alternate messaging solutions that email can't do if it existing in the right sort of framework: 1) P…

Post by rvkennedy » Thu, Jan 05, 2012, 9:22 AM UTC

rvkennedy wrote: post #23

there wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sooner or later I think a RESTful HTTP or SPDY API will replace IMAP, and (for client-server comms at least) SMTP. "replace" is a strong word. IMAP (version 4 that most things use these days) has not replaced POP3, but is a much-improved alternative that is well supported on the server-side and client-side. the reason it was able to gain such popularity was that the spec (RFC 2060) came out in 1996. how many differen…

"replace" is a strong word exactly the word I intended to use: but "sooner or later" can be a long time coming. I know POP still exists, hell, gopher still exists but I'd say it's been replaced in all practical terms. every provider that supports IMAP still has to support POP3 In what sense - do you mean practically, or in some technical way? for a new protocol to replace SMTP or even augment it, it would have to be…

Post by Scaevolus » Thu, Jan 05, 2012, 11:13 AM UTC

chetan51 wrote: post #40

bane wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, which is probably why google put im right next to the message viewer in gmail. I know of many ocassions where a flurry of emails turned into an im session. I think gmail's "conversations" are really the first try at what I'm talking about, a new front end on email, but I don't think they work well enough personally. And they haven't really expanded well on the concept recently.

Google Wave was really what I thought the ideal marriage between email and IM. Why did it fail again?