5 ms·
> Maybe the problem here is that we advertise XMPP as if it were a service, when it's a protocol that "normies" shouldn't ever have to hear about and care about
by microcolonel 9y ago
> Maybe the problem here is that we advertise XMPP as if it were a service, when it's a protocol that "normies" shouldn't ever have to hear about and care about.
I don't think this is true. With email, SMTP is dominant, I do not know of any surviving legacy email service. To today's normie, email and SMTP are synonymous.
XMPP is an even more garbage name than SMTP, but if a standard united the market like it did with email, then there would be a word that is synonymous with that standard.
I think probably the best bet would be to try to turn SMTP into an IM protocol. Then people will make no (protocol-level) distinction between an email thread and an IM conversation. Threads and conversations can be both email.
- nerdponx 9y agoBut you're proving the parent poster's point here. Normies never hear of SMTP except when they copy and paste some incantation from their email provider's website. It's email, it works, and they have no idea how.
- wink 9y agoThere's only literally 3 options. PLAIN/SSL/STARTTLS. I see one of XMPP's major problems that even people who liked, advocated, and worked (not extensively, but more than most I guess) with XMPP can't remember the name or details of a single XEP. In theory everything is compatible, in reality you're lucky if s2s works with the right crypto and you don't get gibberish because of OTR.