5 ms·

Why are messages separated by transport? That is, why are messages sent to/from me via one transport (e.g., SMTP) read and composed in one application, and thos

Why are messages separated by transport? That is, why are messages sent to/from me via one transport (e.g., SMTP) read and composed in one application, and those sent via another transport (e.g., SMS, Twitter) read and composed in another? Why, as a user, do I give %#@%! what the underlying transport is? I think the focus on a particular technology (SMTP) rather than a service (messaging) is why email clients don't advance. Bizarrely, three other transports often are integrated into email clients: NNTP, voicemail, and fax. I can only guess that it's because of a completely arbitrary reason: They are older. Probably chat clients should also be integrated. I should be able to send my contacts an instant or time-shifted message.

aetherson 11y ago
Because the different transports have vastly different abilities and limitations that are a source of frustration if you attempt to obfuscate the differences between them and aren't served by a unified UI?
- hackuser 11y ago
  Could you be more specific? For example, comparing SMS and SMTP, the two most prominent transports?
  - zombition 11y ago
    SMS is used to send tiny chunks of text, and SMTP can be used to send message content in HTML format and rich text in addition to plaintext. I haven't worked much with rich text format, but HTML format for sure would be relatively impractical via SMS (XML adds a lot of characters, so you would have a lot of little chunks to send if you wanted to send HTML over SMS).
    - hackuser 11y ago
      I agree with that. I don't mean that I want to send my email messages visa SMS. I mean that I want all my messages sent/received and read in one messaging client, whether they are transported via SMS, SMTP, etc. If the HTML message should go via SMTP, I expect my software to deal with that. I want the content; the transport is an obscure detail for developers to worry about (speaking as a typical end user).
      - toomuchtodo 11y ago
        You're asking for a magic genie content router that does not exist. It does not exist because its a hard problem. Not only would you need to interoperate with open standards, you'd have to attempt to integrate with unwilling participants (Facebook, Google Hangouts). Are you prepared for that level of pain?
        Ntrails 11y ago
        You also have to consider that facebook already do this. They tried to wrap up email, messages and an SMS replacement on your phone into a single package where they own the whole thing. I look at iMessage and I think it works pretty perfectly, SMS when no internet or to a non apple user, iMessage whenever possible. What I want is for whatsapp (and I suppose facebook and plausibly email) to do the same all in my single messenger application. But. Ignoring the need to get the tech owners to consent to this new "trillian", I'd also have to trust the app itself. Good luck making money on that.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
        Well, if you want that, then you should support open protocols. The business goal of twitter, facebook, etc. is to lock you into their communication system, so if you expect developers to integrate those, you really expect them to invest into integrating with those who want to destroy the open ecosystem that they rely on and who will do whatever they can to hinder the integration.
drumdance 11y ago
Sending is easy. Receiving and sorting and filtering is harder.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > Sending is easy. Receiving and sorting and filtering is harder. I don't understand: Receiving messages on any of the transports is done every day and billions of platforms. After receiving, loading the messages into a common database, including mapping metadata such as sender, date, etc., seems relatively simple. Once in the database, sorting and filtering are simple. What am I missing?
  - baudehlo 11y ago
    Spam, generally. Because email uniquely among communication protocols allows sending a message without any previous agreement from the recipient, will always be susceptible to spam (and getting rid of that feature would destroy emails benefits). Plus people want to filter differently. People deal with their inboxes uniquely.
    - hackuser 11y ago
      Why can't the universal mail client I propose have a spam filter? More likely, my incoming mail server will have the spam filter; the client will have the spam folder. What does it matter if only SMTP messages end up in that folder? > Plus people want to filter differently. People deal with their inboxes uniquely. That issue affects every messaging client's filtering. How does it affect a client any differently if it combines, for example, SMTP and SMS?
      - baudehlo 11y ago
        Oh you absolutely can, but there are a mix of problems some of which makes spam filtering better on the server (knowing bad sources of email, like infected desktop machines), some of which makes filtering better on the client (like knowing your users' preferences for what they consider spam). There's a huge long history of very smart people (not even including myself in that list - I've worked with some people MUCH smarter than myself on this) working on this problem, including the very creator of this site, pg himself, and even he doesn't consider this a solved problem. People are still paid well to combat spam every day on behalf of demanding customers (and I'm grateful I'm not one of them any more) and it will always require new techniques and new input. Hopefully you will contribute too.
marssaxman 11y ago
I'm really glad email doesn't change quickly. It works, and there's nothing really wrong with it.

aetherson 11y ago

Because the different transports have vastly different abilities and limitations that are a source of frustration if you attempt to obfuscate the differences between them and aren't served by a unified UI?

hackuser 11y ago
Could you be more specific? For example, comparing SMS and SMTP, the two most prominent transports?
- zombition 11y ago
  SMS is used to send tiny chunks of text, and SMTP can be used to send message content in HTML format and rich text in addition to plaintext. I haven't worked much with rich text format, but HTML format for sure would be relatively impractical via SMS (XML adds a lot of characters, so you would have a lot of little chunks to send if you wanted to send HTML over SMS).
  - hackuser 11y ago
    I agree with that. I don't mean that I want to send my email messages visa SMS. I mean that I want all my messages sent/received and read in one messaging client, whether they are transported via SMS, SMTP, etc. If the HTML message should go via SMTP, I expect my software to deal with that. I want the content; the transport is an obscure detail for developers to worry about (speaking as a typical end user).
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      You're asking for a magic genie content router that does not exist. It does not exist because its a hard problem. Not only would you need to interoperate with open standards, you'd have to attempt to integrate with unwilling participants (Facebook, Google Hangouts). Are you prepared for that level of pain?
      - Ntrails 11y ago
        You also have to consider that facebook already do this. They tried to wrap up email, messages and an SMS replacement on your phone into a single package where they own the whole thing. I look at iMessage and I think it works pretty perfectly, SMS when no internet or to a non apple user, iMessage whenever possible. What I want is for whatsapp (and I suppose facebook and plausibly email) to do the same all in my single messenger application. But. Ignoring the need to get the tech owners to consent to this new "trillian", I'd also have to trust the app itself. Good luck making money on that.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
      Well, if you want that, then you should support open protocols. The business goal of twitter, facebook, etc. is to lock you into their communication system, so if you expect developers to integrate those, you really expect them to invest into integrating with those who want to destroy the open ecosystem that they rely on and who will do whatever they can to hinder the integration.

drumdance 11y ago

Sending is easy. Receiving and sorting and filtering is harder.

hackuser 11y ago
> Sending is easy. Receiving and sorting and filtering is harder. I don't understand: Receiving messages on any of the transports is done every day and billions of platforms. After receiving, loading the messages into a common database, including mapping metadata such as sender, date, etc., seems relatively simple. Once in the database, sorting and filtering are simple. What am I missing?
- baudehlo 11y ago
  Spam, generally. Because email uniquely among communication protocols allows sending a message without any previous agreement from the recipient, will always be susceptible to spam (and getting rid of that feature would destroy emails benefits). Plus people want to filter differently. People deal with their inboxes uniquely.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    Why can't the universal mail client I propose have a spam filter? More likely, my incoming mail server will have the spam filter; the client will have the spam folder. What does it matter if only SMTP messages end up in that folder? > Plus people want to filter differently. People deal with their inboxes uniquely. That issue affects every messaging client's filtering. How does it affect a client any differently if it combines, for example, SMTP and SMS?
    - baudehlo 11y ago
      Oh you absolutely can, but there are a mix of problems some of which makes spam filtering better on the server (knowing bad sources of email, like infected desktop machines), some of which makes filtering better on the client (like knowing your users' preferences for what they consider spam). There's a huge long history of very smart people (not even including myself in that list - I've worked with some people MUCH smarter than myself on this) working on this problem, including the very creator of this site, pg himself, and even he doesn't consider this a solved problem. People are still paid well to combat spam every day on behalf of demanding customers (and I'm grateful I'm not one of them any more) and it will always require new techniques and new input. Hopefully you will contribute too.

marssaxman 11y ago

I'm really glad email doesn't change quickly. It works, and there's nothing really wrong with it.