Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A ‘frighteningly ambitious’ way to improve email

thenextweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 88 posts

Re: A ‘frighteningly ambitious’ way to improve email

#51

Post by Arelius »

samstave wrote: post #35
shurcooL wrote: post #20

Yep. http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/3313/imagekm.png Give more power to benevolent senders. I've had similar thoughts. I don't want to waste other people's time, but the current email protocol forces me to. There is no way to specify if your email is... 1. "Check this out sometime during the week, it's funny stuff, if you have time. You need a 24"+ screen and 10 mins, so don't even look at this email on your phon…

People forget about IM. For all #1 items, IM the link. It is temporary, and ephemeral. For all #2 items, email them.

Really? Because if I want a quick response, I normally get better luck with a messenger.

Re: A ‘frighteningly ambitious’ way to improve email

#52

Post by monsterix »

sliverstorm wrote: post #41
rogerbinns wrote: post #10

So if both sender and recipient are using this, they'll end up demanding increasing classifications from each other in an infinite loop? I think the actual solution will turn out to be something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Mail_2000 The important difference is that the master copy of the email resides at the sender, which means it is possible for them to update and revise it. With current SMTP the…

Usually I have zero interest in most of the "E-Mail 2.0" hype that springs up every couple months, but I do actually really like the idea of taking dynamic content a step or two further. I think email is fundamentally good at its intended purpose, but I could see things like revisions fitting in comfortably with the existing paradigm.

> but I could see things like revisions fitting in comfortably with the existing paradigm.

But then why call it frighteningly ambitious or ambitious at all?

Re: A ‘frighteningly ambitious’ way to improve email

#53

Post by ChrisNorstrom »

I think email is the ultimate form of bad skeumorphism. It was designed to mimic postal mail. Email addresses, no permissions, no true id checks, no punishment for abuse. Many of the now used features like spam folders, filters, encryption, receipts were just tacked on (poorly). And because it's a "worldwide standard" that no one controls it's impossible for someone with a vision to try and change email.

I say abandon "fixing email" and come up with a new solution altogether. Start with a clean slate. Form a coop or nonprofit foundation that will control the standard for 5-10 years until everything's ironed out, then release the source code so people and providers can use it to replace email and people don't have to depend on one group of people. At this point I'm willing to try anything, as I'm sick of email, I HATE it with every fiber of my being. Spam and delayed newsletter bombing is taking up hours of my time each week.

Re: A ‘frighteningly ambitious’ way to improve email

#54

Post by meric »

ChrisNorstrom wrote: post #53

I think email is the ultimate form of bad skeumorphism. It was designed to mimic postal mail. Email addresses, no permissions, no true id checks, no punishment for abuse. Many of the now used features like spam folders, filters, encryption, receipts were just tacked on (poorly). And because it's a "worldwide standard" that no one controls it's impossible for someone with a vision to try and change email. I say abando…

You mean something like facebook messages?

Re: A ‘frighteningly ambitious’ way to improve email

#55

Post by sliverstorm »

monsterix wrote: post #52
sliverstorm wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually I have zero interest in most of the "E-Mail 2.0" hype that springs up every couple months, but I do actually really like the idea of taking dynamic content a step or two further. I think email is fundamentally good at its intended purpose, but I could see things like revisions fitting in comfortably with the existing paradigm.

> but I could see things like revisions fitting in comfortably with the existing paradigm. But then why call it frighteningly ambitious or ambitious at all?

I wasn't the one who called it that. I don't know that I want "frighteningly ambitious" in my email anyway.

Anyway, I'm always more impressed by people who can do great things within the confines of established procedure. It isn't nearly as hard to differentiate when you start from scratch.

Re: A ‘frighteningly ambitious’ way to improve email

#56

Post by Maascamp »

> ... none of these solutions try to stop stuff from arriving in the first place...

While I don't agree with this particular "frighteningly ambitious" take on the issue I do agree with that the above quote represents an issue that needs solving. In my opinion, forcing the sender to conform their email to a format of your choosing simply isn't scalable. The reason email is so well used today is because it's so simple to use. This adds a layer of complexity to the people trying to communicate with you that I think would just lead to fewer people attempting to communicate with you (which could in fact be what you want).

I've spent some time building my own "frighteningly ambitious" solution (I'm actually planing on doing a Show HN on Monday or Tuesday). Essentially, the idea is that right now it's the people emailing you that control your inbox. Our solution is to give users control over when and from whom they receive email. It puts you in actual control over you inbox for the first time. For those interested check out https://lightermail.com. Would love to get your opinion.

Re: A ‘frighteningly ambitious’ way to improve email

#57

Post by monsterix »

meric wrote: post #54
ChrisNorstrom wrote: post #53

I think email is the ultimate form of bad skeumorphism. It was designed to mimic postal mail. Email addresses, no permissions, no true id checks, no punishment for abuse. Many of the now used features like spam folders, filters, encryption, receipts were just tacked on (poorly). And because it's a "worldwide standard" that no one controls it's impossible for someone with a vision to try and change email. I say abando…

You mean something like facebook messages?

Probably something like this?: https://bubbleideas.com

Better skeumorphism of mail? Sure, like refactor and split mail from postage parts completely? Chris, can we connect with you over email? (the irony, ha!)

[Disclosure: I work for the project linked above.]

Re: A ‘frighteningly ambitious’ way to improve email

#58

Post by monsterix »

sliverstorm wrote: post #55
monsterix wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I could see things like revisions fitting in comfortably with the existing paradigm. But then why call it frighteningly ambitious or ambitious at all?

I wasn't the one who called it that. I don't know that I want "frighteningly ambitious" in my email anyway. Anyway, I'm always more impressed by people who can do great things within the confines of established procedure. It isn't nearly as hard to differentiate when you start from scratch.

My mistake, I should have worded the rhetoric better.

I implied for the title of the post (given by OP) being opposite to what impressive is within confines of established procedure. No?

Re: A ‘frighteningly ambitious’ way to improve email

#59

Post by arn »

gst wrote: post #43
nonamegiven wrote: post #39

I do not thing email is broken, nor do I think it's a todo list. In fact it's my favorite part of the internet. But y'all go ahead.

Totally agree. Email works perfectly fine for me. For private purposes as well as for my job. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I don't see anything that's broken or that would require fixing.

Email doesn't scale well is the problem. The people complaining are those people who get a lot of email. I fall in the cateory and constantly struggle with it.

Ultimately I think the real solution is a personal assistant.

Re: A ‘frighteningly ambitious’ way to improve email

#60

Post by jzwinck »

MichaelApproved wrote: post #17
rogerbinns wrote: post #10

So if both sender and recipient are using this, they'll end up demanding increasing classifications from each other in an infinite loop? I think the actual solution will turn out to be something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Mail_2000 The important difference is that the master copy of the email resides at the sender, which means it is possible for them to update and revise it. With current SMTP the…

I was just complaining about this problem today. If I'm CCed on an email exchange and 4 or 5 messages go back and forth then the problem is solved, i still have 5 unread measages in my inbox. In reality, I should have zero messages because the problem has been resolved but SMTP doesn't allow for that.

Related to this is a common corporate problem where someone has a problem they perceive as somewhat urgent. They often send a message to several people, hoping to get the first possible answer. Sometimes the recipients experience diffusion of responsibility and no one answers, because each believes someone else is better able (or less busy).

There are systems with retraction capabilities for senders (e.g. Bloomberg MSG, though it is no competitor on price). But I haven't seen anything like a system which would downgrade messages already seen by others, etc.

Post reply on HN