3 ms·
> It is that smtp is fundamentally broken. Because the SMTP cabal is fanatically opposed to changing it. The response I had 15 years ago was "It takes 10 year
by adekok 11y ago
> It is that smtp is fundamentally broken.
Because the SMTP cabal is fanatically opposed to changing it.
The response I had 15 years ago was "It takes 10 years to deploy any serious changes to a protocol".
Uh... so? Does that mean we shouldn't do it?
Apparently, yes. 15 years later, there have been no substantive changes to SMTP.
Repeat after me, SMTP is perfect. It's perfect! Well, there are a few known issues. But it's deployed! It's too hard to change. You're trying to change it? You're a terrible person who doesn't understand SMTP.
I got that for 5 years before giving up and going to more productive lines of work.
- chmike 11y agoChanging SMTP would create a lot of interoperability problems. I agree with this. This is why I concluded that we need a new protocol that solves the problem of SMTP. If it's good it will take over SMTP's market share. That's the way to go. It's like IMAP taking over market share of POP, ... It's been some years now that I'm thinking on this messaging and spamming problem. It is not a protocol or technical issue. The problem is the abuse of the communication system by spammer. The worst is that people have to hide their contact address or use semi private messaging systems. This is totally contradictory to the evolution of the communication systems. We have smartphones and can't reliably send a message to any body in the world ? Internet is lacking a solution for that.