3 ms·

It doesn't do what's needed. It provides a channel for spam, insecure delivery etc. It's too broken. We do really need a new email.

zapzupnz 6y ago
Yes, but the point is, don’t sell it that way.
franga2000 6y ago
The fact that it has problems is entirely tangential to the fact that it does what's needed. What's needed is "I send a thing to a person and it soon-ish shows up on their end", with the bonus of knowing that someone would have to expend significant effort to intercept it. This has been true since the invention of writing and very few scenarios needed more. Anything on top of that (spam rejection, steong verification and encryption, etc.) is nice to have, but clearly not critical, because otherwise we still wouldn't all be relying on paper mail, email and sms for even the most critical of things. So yes, we really do need something better than email (and we have plenty of options), but it doesn't have to (nor will it any time soon) replace email.
ddingus 6y ago
None of what you wrote speaks to not doing what is needed.
ruslan 6y ago
We do not need new email. We need a way to authorize messages sent and also a way to enburden senders for the content they send. In pre-internet era UUCP was widely used to deliver messages, UUCP providers used to charged their customers for each message they sent which made spam broadcasting quite costly. What I see is a kind of distributed message transportation system that takes currency from sender and shares a fraction of it with recipient. I.e. sender always pays for sending their stuff, recipient gets paid for interruption. SMS messaging is very close to this.
oss2020 6y ago
Real transport level security will be possible with MTA-STS (rfc8461). Use DNSSEC, enforce TLS, and verify server certificates. Also I haven't had much trouble with spam recently (spam filter works fine).
- tptacek 6y ago
  The point of MTA-STS is not having to use DNSSEC, which nobody does anyways.

zapzupnz 6y ago

Yes, but the point is, don’t sell it that way.

franga2000 6y ago

The fact that it has problems is entirely tangential to the fact that it does what's needed. What's needed is "I send a thing to a person and it soon-ish shows up on their end", with the bonus of knowing that someone would have to expend significant effort to intercept it. This has been true since the invention of writing and very few scenarios needed more. Anything on top of that (spam rejection, steong verification and encryption, etc.) is nice to have, but clearly not critical, because otherwise we still wouldn't all be relying on paper mail, email and sms for even the most critical of things. So yes, we really do need something better than email (and we have plenty of options), but it doesn't have to (nor will it any time soon) replace email.

ddingus 6y ago

None of what you wrote speaks to not doing what is needed.

ruslan 6y ago

We do not need new email. We need a way to authorize messages sent and also a way to enburden senders for the content they send. In pre-internet era UUCP was widely used to deliver messages, UUCP providers used to charged their customers for each message they sent which made spam broadcasting quite costly. What I see is a kind of distributed message transportation system that takes currency from sender and shares a fraction of it with recipient. I.e. sender always pays for sending their stuff, recipient gets paid for interruption. SMS messaging is very close to this.

oss2020 6y ago

Real transport level security will be possible with MTA-STS (rfc8461). Use DNSSEC, enforce TLS, and verify server certificates. Also I haven't had much trouble with spam recently (spam filter works fine).

tptacek 6y ago
The point of MTA-STS is not having to use DNSSEC, which nobody does anyways.