Hyperbole aside (they won’t drop SMTP) that is a very narrow and unfair view on the situation, they at least tried for years to make it work with these standards and failed. They were obviously the last ones doing so, and this new approach is mainly about modernising their infrastructure. Is there anyone else of any consequence out there who is building these sorts of messaging apps on top of XMPP? Google was the las…
Lync 2013 fully supports XMPP federation. Cisco's IM offerings support XMPP federation. IBM's Sametime supports XMPP federation. Numerous organizations have deployments of these and other, smaller XMPP IM servers. As for cherry picking standards, isn't that exactly what you're doing with your statement on Chromium and web standards?
What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?
41–50 of 263 posts
Re: What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?
#42Hyperbole aside (they won’t drop SMTP) that is a very narrow and unfair view on the situation, they at least tried for years to make it work with these standards and failed. They were obviously the last ones doing so, and this new approach is mainly about modernising their infrastructure. Is there anyone else of any consequence out there who is building these sorts of messaging apps on top of XMPP? Google was the las…
I use XMPP to talk with Google Talk users from an XMPP account hosted on my own server. I will be annoyed if Google users are driven away from Google Talk to something that I cannot interact with unless I use a Google account.
Re: What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?
#43Hyperbole aside (they won’t drop SMTP) that is a very narrow and unfair view on the situation, they at least tried for years to make it work with these standards and failed. They were obviously the last ones doing so, and this new approach is mainly about modernising their infrastructure. Is there anyone else of any consequence out there who is building these sorts of messaging apps on top of XMPP? Google was the las…
Isn't Facebook chat XMPP?
Re: What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coincidentally, only yesterday I installed an XMPP daemon on one of my servers and configured it as a message relay so I can send and receive SMS from my PC via my phone. Facebook chat also uses XMPP. So in answer to your question: yes, there are people still building new stuff on top of XMPP. However I will concede that I'm also a bit IRC advocate - so I'm probably the wrong person to comment on the best newest soci…
No one is taking xmpp away from your server or the applications that are using it; but take Facebook: did they do any effort of integrating their chat with the Gmail one?
I'm not worried that Google might someone how hack into my server and kill XMPP on that, nor am I commenting on the level of the Facebook Chat integration with the wider XMPP community (in fact the reason I run my own XMPP server was to have a private channel, so I can completely understand why Facebook have chosen to do so as well).
My comment was just stating that XMPP is still widely used - despite other peoples claims that Google were it's only supporters.
Re: What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?
#45I'm pretty disappointed by the recent dropping of standards that Google has been doing. I'm quite a sceptical person and I've never been a fan of any big corp, but Google has been the one that I've trusted my data in the most and that I've been happiest with. I still trust them with some of my data, but I'm rapidly losing faith in them and in fact I'm starting to think that Microsoft are a more "open" company... and…
>I'm starting to think that Microsoft are a more "open" company... I am disappointed too. But why is Microsoft more open? Does Microsoft have an open messaging protocol that I don't know of? Or an open source operating system? Or an open source browser? The last I checked, they were forcing manufacturers to ship computers with locked down bootloaders so you can't install your own operating system. >But they're privac…
Re: What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
People keep banging on about "plain text, plain text" what is wrong with plain text? And what is wrong with SMTP? Also email attachments can be binary encoded, base64 is just one option. People are free to say that SMTP is "bad" or "broken" but they have to say exactly why that is the case. And "there are multiple different implementations" is a pretty poor justification, as a SMTP replacement would likely have the s…
> People keep banging on about "plain text, plain text" what is wrong with plain text? Well it's not exactly secure, for one thing. > Also email attachments can be binary encoded, base64 is just one option. base64 is a method for encoding binary. You cannot send raw binary other ASCII - which is why base64 is used in SMTP. > People are free to say that SMTP is "bad" or "broken" but they have to say exactly why that i…
No more or less secure than HTTP/HTTPS. In fact exactly as secure as...
>base64 is a method for encoding binary. You cannot send raw binary other ASCII - which is why base64 is used in SMTP.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3030
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2045
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIME#Content-Transfer-Encoding
>Actually I have given a long list of reasons every time I've complained about SMTP >https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5510910 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5297472
Your list is full of misinformation.
- Base64 thing is nonsense. As already stated SMTP supports binary and has for a long time.
- SMTPS is fairly well supported. In fact I currently connect to nothing which lacks it, and my email client auto-selects it when setting up new connections. Most of the hosts as far as I know support SMTPS out-of-the-box.
- SMTP reply codes are standardised (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1893.txt)
- HTML is standardised.
- SMTP is not designed to be real-time. That is what IM is designed to provide.
Re: What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?
#47That sounds unbelievable, coming from the supposedly open company even though it's coming on the heels of them trying lock out millions of Windows Phone users from Youtube by sending a C&D takedown on the app.
I guess open standards don't work when you're the guy trying to lock in users. If Google had a lock-in on Office products, looks like they will ditch "open data" and "open standards" in a heartbeat. They should change their policy to "open when it's convenient for us to flog it for PR purposes, else closed, oh and please store all your office documents on our cloud, we make it really convenient.".
This is not Open vs. Closed anymore, this is Corporations vs. Individuals, except for Mozilla which is becoming less powerful because Google uses its ad dollars to bundle Chrome with Flash, Acrobat and Java updates by default thereby reducing Firefox's share and has the nice side effect of reducing Google's payments to Mozilla for searches.
And Web DRM? Of course it's coming because IE, Chrome and Safari are going to be supporting it fully with 80% marketshare and people will blame Firefox if Netflix doesn't work in it and recommend you switch to Chrome to see movies! iOS, Android and Windows Phone, BBOS will add support for 100% tablet and phone support for the DRM. Firefox and Opera are powerless to stop it. We have already seen this play out with th h.264 HTML5 video support in Chrome fiasco when Google said it would drop H.264 from Chrome but did not and Mozilla was left holding the short end of the stick and had to recently had to eat crow and add support for H264. The web is owned by the corporates, not individuals anymore, there was some hope when Firefox was at 40%, not anymore. And we all willingly gave them the power by believing in "open" and "do no evil" and switching in droves.
I can picture Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon, Netflix etc executives sitting at a bar and giving toast to each other and laughing while we whine and debate fruitlessly with vitriol on these forums. All their stock valuations are up recently!
Re: What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
SMTP is worse than plain text. It's plain text and base64 (which increases file sizes by ~30%). It's a horrid protocol, but sadly it's what we're currently stuck with. But this is all moot as the article is about XMPP, WebDav and RSS. The SMTP headline is nothing more than clickbait.
People keep banging on about "plain text, plain text" what is wrong with plain text? And what is wrong with SMTP? Also email attachments can be binary encoded, base64 is just one option. People are free to say that SMTP is "bad" or "broken" but they have to say exactly why that is the case. And "there are multiple different implementations" is a pretty poor justification, as a SMTP replacement would likely have the s…
Plain text means anyone can read your message while it's going over the wire. That person sitting next to you in the coffee shop? He's running a packet sniffer and is reading everything you send, because it's plain text.
-- edit: In information security, plaintext means unencrypted. That's true for SMTP, and that's what I'm referring to. Am I wrong?
Re: What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?
#49Re: What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
People keep banging on about "plain text, plain text" what is wrong with plain text? And what is wrong with SMTP? Also email attachments can be binary encoded, base64 is just one option. People are free to say that SMTP is "bad" or "broken" but they have to say exactly why that is the case. And "there are multiple different implementations" is a pretty poor justification, as a SMTP replacement would likely have the s…
>what is wrong with plain text? Plain text means anyone can read your message while it's going over the wire. That person sitting next to you in the coffee shop? He's running a packet sniffer and is reading everything you send, because it's plain text. -- edit: In information security, plaintext means unencrypted. That's true for SMTP, and that's what I'm referring to. Am I wrong?
Plain text is a style of encoding information (e.g. binary, XML, JSON, plain text, etc). Encryption determines if someone can intercept your message.
Something can be both plain text and secure, like HTTPS for one example.