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

Email could have been X.400 times better

buttondown.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 211 posts

Re: Email could have been X.400 times better

#101

Post by lxgr »

jgalt212 wrote: post #58
dpark wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I didn’t specifically opt in to receiving marketing emails (and no, failing to opt out is not the same), they are spam. I’ve never heard anyone say “I’m sure glad this company added me to their email list without my request.” The fact that you happen to work on a mailing list product does not change that reality.

I hear what you're saying, but irrespective of how one landed on such a list, the unsubscribe mechanism is broken. e.g. It's entirely possible and likely you've subscribed to one or more marketing lists, newsletters, transaction emails, etc that you want to be on, but your security software inadvertently unsubscribed you (without your permission).

No, it's not, because I don't use shitty security solutions.

If other people do and you are making me jump through hoops as a result to preserve your conversion rate, I'm reporting you to the relevant regulator.

> the unsubscribe mechanism is broken

Which one?

Are you saying some security solutions actually send a `List-Unsubscribe`/`List-Unsubscribe-Post` compliant HTTP POST with the correct payload, or do you think a URL in the email body is the gold standard of allowing people to unsubscribe?

Or are you just telling yourself that rationalization to avoid acknowledging that you're probably causing massive annoyance to many recipients?

Re: Email could have been X.400 times better

#102

Post by bigfatkitten »

kstrauser wrote: post #80
MisterTea wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's the entire reason "internet" standards won over "telco" (in this case ITU) standards - the latter could only be deployed by big coordinated efforts, Anyone remember the promise of ATM networking in the 90's? It was telecom grade networking which used circuit switched networking that would handle voice, video and data down one pipe. Instead of carelessly flinging packets into the ether like an savage, you had a…

I was there for ATM, and I'm so freaking glad it lost. It's a prime example of "a camel is a horse designed by committee". A 53 byte cell with a 48 byte payload? Of course! What an excellent idea! We definitely want a 10% overhead on a ludicrously small packet, just so it has tolerable voice latencies if you scale it down to run on a 64Kb DS0, never mind that literally everything in the industry was scaling up to fat…

If you’re primarily concerned with shuffling low latency voice around the place, and you want to do hardware forwarding on relatively inexpensive silicon, then that cell size is entirely sensible.

That approach of course didn’t age well when voice almost became a niche application.

Re: Email could have been X.400 times better

#103

Post by burnished »

pjc50 wrote: post #25
MisterTea wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's the entire reason "internet" standards won over "telco" (in this case ITU) standards - the latter could only be deployed by big coordinated efforts, Anyone remember the promise of ATM networking in the 90's? It was telecom grade networking which used circuit switched networking that would handle voice, video and data down one pipe. Instead of carelessly flinging packets into the ether like an savage, you had a…

> Ethernet had to adapt to deterministic real-time needs Without being able to get too into the telco detail, I think the lesson was that hard realtime is both much harder to achieve and not actually needed . People will happily chat over nondeterministic Zoom and Discord. It's both psychological and slightly paradoxical. Once you let go of saying "the system MUST GUARANTEE this property", you get a much cheaper, bet…

Yeah, big differences between an absolute guarantee and "we'll take as much as we can get"

Re: Email could have been X.400 times better

#104

Post by justsomehnguy »

agwa wrote: post #42
pjc50 wrote: post #14

>> SMTP "“didn’t win because it was ‘better,’” he argued, but “just because it was easier to implement." Yes - and this is actually really important! It's true of most of the important early internet technologies. It's the entire reason "internet" standards won over "telco" (in this case ITU) standards - the latter could only be deployed by big coordinated efforts, while internet standards let individual decentralize…

I'll note that while X.509 certificates are deployed widely on the Internet, they are not deployed in the manner the ITU intended. There is no global X.500 directory and Distinguished Names are just opaque identifiers that are used to help find issuers during chain building. That hardly counts as a win for the ITU in my book.

And in some usages CN is just doesn't even looked up upon.

Re: Email could have been X.400 times better

#105

Post by halJordan »

addaon wrote: post #99

I still think the missing opportunity with e-mail was for the USPS (back in the US-dominant internet days) to take a leading role and implement "e-stamps." Provide a subscription service that managed a per-user account, cost a 1¢ stamp to send a message, and guaranteed delivery of messages received with a 1¢ stamp on them -- with the received stamp value being put in the user's account, so a user who received more ma…

The physical usps works because, the usps controls every inbox and every outbox; everyone has to have an inbox/outbox with the single carrier, and no one can actually reject or refuse mail. All the downsides of iMessage but the government reading your email bc it's not an encrypted protocol. Spam exists in the real world, this wouldn't have worked either

Re: Email could have been X.400 times better

#106

Post by pembrook »

addaon wrote: post #99

I still think the missing opportunity with e-mail was for the USPS (back in the US-dominant internet days) to take a leading role and implement "e-stamps." Provide a subscription service that managed a per-user account, cost a 1¢ stamp to send a message, and guaranteed delivery of messages received with a 1¢ stamp on them -- with the received stamp value being put in the user's account, so a user who received more ma…

Not sure it was a big missed opportunity to create a communication protocol that...financially penalizes communication?

Sounds like a really fast way to kill a network instead of grow it into a 4B daily active user staple like email is today. You'd basically ensure that email would ONLY be spam, because marketers would be the only ones willing spend money to reach people.

Every time I see someone suggest micropayments on HN I have to wonder if people here have any understanding of how actual humans are. Turning every action on your network into a purchase decision is a good way to ensure nobody ever does anything on your network and thus it never becomes a network.

Humans will always gravitate toward the lowest friction way to achieve their goals. So immediately some private company would introduce a free communication channel as a loss leader instead, theirs would grow faster, and then they'd monetize via ads once their network reached critical mass (see also, whatsapp). Killing the more egalitarian decentralized protocol in the process.

Re: Email could have been X.400 times better

#107

Post by lukeasch21 »

pjc50 wrote: post #14

>> SMTP "“didn’t win because it was ‘better,’” he argued, but “just because it was easier to implement." Yes - and this is actually really important! It's true of most of the important early internet technologies. It's the entire reason "internet" standards won over "telco" (in this case ITU) standards - the latter could only be deployed by big coordinated efforts, while internet standards let individual decentralize…

X.25 and other ITU specs won out massively in aviation, and they are just recently starting to go through the slow painful process of moving to IP. We'll probably see it hanging around for at least another 15 years in that sector.

Re: Email could have been X.400 times better

#108

Post by Ferdinandpferd »

addaon wrote: post #99

I still think the missing opportunity with e-mail was for the USPS (back in the US-dominant internet days) to take a leading role and implement "e-stamps." Provide a subscription service that managed a per-user account, cost a 1¢ stamp to send a message, and guaranteed delivery of messages received with a 1¢ stamp on them -- with the received stamp value being put in the user's account, so a user who received more ma…

I found the artificial cost ideas interesting at the time but I think the Ad landscape shows that it doesn't really work. All but the least sinister scammers would happily pay pretty well and have to be prevented from buying ads unless financial regulations could prevent any kind of laundering proceeds back into more ads.

Re: Email could have been X.400 times better

#109

Post by twobitshifter »

addaon wrote: post #99

I still think the missing opportunity with e-mail was for the USPS (back in the US-dominant internet days) to take a leading role and implement "e-stamps." Provide a subscription service that managed a per-user account, cost a 1¢ stamp to send a message, and guaranteed delivery of messages received with a 1¢ stamp on them -- with the received stamp value being put in the user's account, so a user who received more ma…

My physical mailbox full of junk mail says that spam would still exist.

Re: Email could have been X.400 times better

#110

Post by WalterBright »

twobitshifter wrote: post #109
addaon wrote: post #99

I still think the missing opportunity with e-mail was for the USPS (back in the US-dominant internet days) to take a leading role and implement "e-stamps." Provide a subscription service that managed a per-user account, cost a 1¢ stamp to send a message, and guaranteed delivery of messages received with a 1¢ stamp on them -- with the received stamp value being put in the user's account, so a user who received more ma…

My physical mailbox full of junk mail says that spam would still exist.

3 or 4 items, sure. But my email account gets several hundred per day.
Post reply on HN