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

AMP for email is a terrible idea

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–483 of 483 posts

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#481

Post by nvarsj »

Tepix wrote: post #233
jbg_ wrote: post #205

There's a recurring theme in the discussion of this (and actually any time there is a discussion about email), that self-hosting email is really hard. That hasn't been my experience. I've been self-hosting four mail accounts (with moderate to high usage) on one server since about 2007. I briefly tried gmail when it came out but never switched to it. In 11 years of self-hosting my mail I've had one deliverability prob…

Yep. When you setup your server with a project such as sovereign you get great, secure defaults and day-to-day maintenance is minimal. Mostly keeping debian packages updated and upgrading the distribution every couple of years.

Until gmail/outlook/yahoo start silently blocking a percentage of your emails for some obscure reason. It’s really hard to get self hosted email right - it is very user hostile.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#482

Post by bigbugbag »

tripzilch wrote: post #466
y03a wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't that kill the possibility that a visitor will already have common content cached when visiting your site for the first time? I know that's not the only reason to use a CDN, but it's a pretty big one.

IIRC the argument was that JS bloat is okay "because we can cache common content through CDNs" ... or that's how it felt at the time :) It sort of/kind of started with jQuery, and in those days including jQuery was considered somewhat bloaty. I think it was about 18kB minified back then? Today their site says it's 30kB. Either way that's miniscule compared to having a few pictures on your webpage. Having much more JS…

> Either way that's miniscule compared to having a few pictures on your webpage.

A visitor can decide to not display images to improve performance and this will not break the website, blocking the (often not useful) js on the other hand...

> And if someone asked if it was really a good idea to blindly load 3rd party code and run it in the context of your own domain? Even I told people this sometimes: Well if you can't trust Google serving you secure code,

You overlooked the privacy and personal data issue here. It's a bad idea to rely on anything google because it means that you give away the privacy of your visitor to one of the worst offender no less.

> About a week ago Google got caught hosting hostile ads ...

Google has been delivering malware, spyware and that kind of things for years. It was even considered a major vector of infection (usually someone looked for flash on google and clicked on the first results which happened to be a google ad for an infected flash installer)

Post reply on HN