Live data from Hacker News

What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?

eschnou.com

91–100 of 263 posts

Re: What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?

#91
post #67

Wait, so Google is dropping XMPP support because Outlook.com is supporting it to allow Gtalk users to chat on Outlook.com, so in order to perpetuate the GMail/GTalk lock-in by caging the Gtalk chat users to GMail, they're dropping standards support and killing access to all XMPP clients in existence including non-Microsoft ones? And they announce this right when Microsoft spent all the time and effort to allow Outloo…

> That sounds unbelievable It's unbelievable because it's not true. They're dropping XMPP federation , which outlook.com never used anyway. What outlook.com has done is they've added an XMPP client that lets you connect to Google's servers in order to send chat messages to GTalk users. That's still going to work. Also note that what Microsoft have done is allow outlook.com users to communicate with GTalk users, but n…

They dropped XMPP federation a couple of months ago. The new move is away from XMPP entirely. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5714557

Re: What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?

#92
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Locked down boot loaders? The spec says you must be able to change it. And you can. Same with Chromebooks (dev switches) and Macs (rEFIt or boot camp). This is about security of the boot process for those who desire it. TPM is a feature just like Chrome's default support for DRM now. Necessary evils or useful security, all depends on who is in control. What makes service lockdown worse is you're not in control if you…

You can turn off safe boot only on x86 devices, but not on ARM devices.

Re: What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?

#93
post #45
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

I thought I'd read somewhere previously that Google claimed rights to be able to do whatever they wanted with your data... I'm looking at that now and it's not clear to me but I may have been wrong about that.

That is pretty much what every cloud storage services writes on their privacy policy. As far as I know, there is nothing special about Google's.

Re: What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?

#94
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Locked down boot loaders? The spec says you must be able to change it. And you can. Same with Chromebooks (dev switches) and Macs (rEFIt or boot camp). This is about security of the boot process for those who desire it. TPM is a feature just like Chrome's default support for DRM now. Necessary evils or useful security, all depends on who is in control. What makes service lockdown worse is you're not in control if you…

> The spec says you must be able to change it.

This is true for x86, ARM has the opposite requirement. Presumably esolyt was referring to the Windows 8 Hardware Certification Requirements: Client and Server Systems[1] which state "On an ARM system, it is forbidden to enable Custom Mode." and "Disabling Secure Boot must not be possible on ARM systems." (page 122) which prevents booting to an OS not signed by Microsoft.

1. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/hh7...

Re: What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?

#95
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GTalk is still as is. As for YouTube it is and always have been available on the web for windows phone. Microsoft in clear violation of Google's TOS used undocumented APIs and stripped ads from YouTube and now they have the audacity to say that they would have complied by the TOS if it suited them better. Please take your anti-Google (probably Microsoft sponsored astroturf) elsewhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/sub…

How about attacking the argument instead of the person ? Trying to paint this black/white picture of someone just because they disagree with you is frankly pathetic.

I think I've attacked both.

Re: What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?

#96

Stop relying on Google for everything. Stop building things on Google. No company should have such a big impact on your life and society as a whole. Several months ago I moved everything to the Microsoft ecosystem. In some ways its trading one taskmaster for another, but if we don't exercise our freedom of choice in the marketplace we soon won't have a choice.

> No company should have such a big impact on your life

> Several months ago I moved everything to the Microsoft ecosystem.

Oh yeah?

Re: What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?

#97
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think it's relevant? Microsoft is paying millions to run anti-Google attack ads and smear campaigns everywhere, it's not unthinkable that they would hire astroturf to roam sites like HN, so for the sake of the health of this community they ought to be pointed out.

No, it is not really that relevant. If Microsoft is paying recoiledsnake a billion dollars to make that post, does it change any of the facts in it? No? Then why whinge about possible or probably astroturfing instead of just addressing the facts in their post? Unless you want HN to do a full background check on every poster here, it's hard to identify Google/Apple/Microsoft fans/haters/employees/shareholders. You hav…

I've addressed the "facts".

Re: What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?

#98
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No more or less secure than HTTP/HTTPS. In fact exactly as secure as... HTTPS is end to end encryption. In the instances that SMTP traffic is encrypted, it's only node to node. So SMTPS is less secure than HTTPS. > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3030 It's still not /the/ standard though, just /a/ standard; and one that's not particularly well supported in my experience. Most of the SMTP servers I've dealt with have…

> HTTPS is end to end encryption. In the instances that SMTP traffic is encrypted, it's only node to node. So in this instance SMTPS is less secure than HTTPS. Sorry, not following you. HTTPS and SMTPS are both end to end encryption schemes. In fact they both use SSL in a similar way to secure traffic. > It's still not /the/ standard though, just /a/ standard; and one that's not particularly well supported in my expe…

> Sorry, not following you. HTTPS and SMTPS are both end to end encryption schemes. In fact they both use SSL in a similar way to secure traffic.

Yeah sorry, I explained my point abysmally there. What I meant was e-mails are only encrypted on a node-to-node basis but obviously a proportion of that transport isn't over SMTP. (My complaints are about the entire e-mail stack where as you're focusing on just SMTP, so there may have been a degree of us talking past each other).

> I'm looking in my mail server logs right now, and am seeing a response code from a third party server for every email we forward. Our mail server then determines what to do with each code, and I can manually add additional handlers (e.g. code XXX do THIS, code YYY do THAT).

We're definitely talking past each here. I'm on about client side not server side. (I should have been more clear from the outset that my complaints are about the entire email stack rather than specifically against SMTP)

> Cost is a reason. Delivery assurance is another (e.g. if it fails to deliver the first time, do you retry for hours or just give up?). The fact that some clients are still on slow/off-line connections is a very good reason (e.g. phones that come in and out of cellular range, people on dial-up, people out in the middle of nowhere who get internet for an hour once a week, etc).

None of that is really an issue though. 1) we already have mail servers that retry for hours 2) we already have instant push mechanisms for e-mails on phones 3) you're actually reducing the network overhead by eliminating the POP3/IMAP handshakes every n minutes in favor of an idle TCP/IP connection with periodic pings.

> Really? Strange. I transmit binary data every day over email and I've never had an issue with a recipient not receiving it. Which mail server and version in particular are you having issues with?

Maybe the base64 conversion is happening at my end then. It's never caused an issue as such (we have the capacity to cope with base64), it was just one of many niggles with the mismatch of the whole ecosystem. But I'll happily concede that I was wrong about the binary point :) (I don't particularly want to announce to the world what software and versions we're running at work for reasons that I hope you appreciate)

Re: What's next Google? Dropping SMTP support?

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, to be clear, Google is supposed to make video chat with groups of people, recording to YouTube, desktop sharing, and Google Docs live editing work with XMPP? Or else they're evil?

The company with half the top Phds and best engineers in the world and billions in profit every quarter is unable to create an open extension to XMPP to accomplish those and fallback gracefully if it's not supported? You really believe that? You could assemble a team of 30 random HN posters and they would be able to do that. So, I think they could do it, if and only if they wanted to. But they didn't and they themsel…

I think that you should assemble your team of thirty random people on HN and get them to do that thing that you want them to do. Good luck!
Post reply on HN