Signal partners with Microsoft to bring end-to-end encryption to Skype

> No. They're not useful. They were a disaster, and EFF should stop doing them (I think they have?)

> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10525266

Seems like most of the critiqued stuff has changed. By the time i got to EFF recomendations Signal was the winner and use of telegram and cryptocat was discouraged.

More than a few comments trying to rationalize why Skype is different under Microsoft. (Supernodes are controlled by Microsoft, not users.) Also some comments exhibiting misconceptions about the relative feasibility of peer-to-peer networking today compared to the past.

Some users want peer-to-peer networks that are controlled by users, not third parties such as Microsoft, Facebook, etc. It seems that corporations are also interested in such networks. But they just want the users, not the ability to exclude third parties (they are a third party).

What is important for these interested users is that Skype changed and how it changed, not why changed.

No explanation, rationale or excuse is a substitute for a peer-to-peer network that is controlled by its users, not third parties.

We know why these user-controlled networks get acquired (or copied) by companies: because they work and they attract many users.

Not sure if this is recent enough, but I moved my self-hosted email to a new address a little over 4 years ago.

The only systems that have had even tiny problems with were Gmail and Microsoft. With Gmail it took a while to build reputation as a non-offender. With Microsoft the first time I sent mail to their way, I got an automated bounce with instructions to forward to a certain address for human verification. That check round took maybe 12 hours and I haven't had any problems since.

I find that pretty reasonable.

Sounds like Microsoft (outlook.com and friends?) have improved since I sat things up - I never got a bounce. It'd be nice if Gmail was so considerate.

But how do you know that when you send mail to a new Gmail contact it won't be silently flagged as spam? And how many times will the recipient have to "un-flag" before the behaviour changeges?

> The only systems that have had even tiny problems with were Gmail and Microsoft

The "only" big provider missing from that list is apple (in the West anyway).

I've never meant to claim that smaller providers that know what they're doing aren't capable of sending proper bounces, setting proper smtp error codes on reception or of handling email to postmaster@.

It's just that with Gmail and outlook not being God net citizens - it becomes unreasonably hard to send legitimate email to a large percentage of Internet users. One possible "fix" is to send mail to Gmail users via a Gmail account and Gmail authenticated smtp servers - and so on for outlook.com - but as the number of "silos" one needs to send data to grows, that solution becomes cumbersome. Not to mention if you publish an mx record for your domain, you should be accepting email... That's the whole point...

I would much more prefer if they would fix such basic things as missing front/rear camera switch in video call or inability to send more than one photo at same time.