4 ms·

Zillions of websites have active discussion boards, despite the success of Reddit and FB Groups. A handful of webmail providers have centralized a large fracti

Zillions of websites have active discussion boards, despite the success of Reddit and FB Groups. A handful of webmail providers have centralized a large fraction of all email users. They already have the control you're concerned about. Non-federated email means you have accounts at several sites, and most sites have membership requirements (customers-only, employees-only, etc). A client app keeps track of all your accounts. A webmail intermediary is unnecessary. The mnm demo gives a sketch of this [1] and the FAQ gives more detail [2]. [1] https://mnmnotmail.org/demo.html https://mnmnotmail.org/demo.html [2] https://mnmnotmail.org/faq.html https://mnmnotmail.org/faq.html

shkkmo 5y ago
Given that you could easily "unfederate" SMTP/pop3 and have the exact same model, I don't see how exactly the lack of federation will be a selling point. I see any value in TMTP in the improvements as a protocol and I think it will be only be hurt by having no provision for federation in the protocol.
- networkimprov 5y ago
  A TMTP server could act as a proxy between a client and service; there are a few use cases for that (mentioned in FAQ, but not in current protocol draft). I'm not aware of any use cases for store-and-forward federation that aren't better served by a client-server network. And I've been thinking about this around the clock for four years :-)
josephg 5y ago
If email worked the way those sites do, I'd need a microsoft webmail account to talk to microsoft webmail people. And a gmail account to talk to gmail people. And an apple account to talk to people there. And so on. That would be a much worse experience of email than we have today. Federation in email is used constantly and ubiquitously. Why would anyone want to turn it off?
- networkimprov 5y ago
  I don't mean to be impolite, but it seems like you haven't read any of the links I posted.
  - josephg 5y ago
    Well, the website is currently being down / DNS-squatted. I read the FAQ through the wayback machine[1], and it doesn't make an argument beyond cybercrime. I don't care enough about stopping cybercrime to stop using email. And I think most of the world feels the same way. Email is simply too useful. And if the proposal is to replace it with someone non-federated, no thanks. I'd rather use a federated protocol with spam and phishing emails than use a tangled mess of centralized services, each with their own accounts and governance. Being able to email anyone in the world from the comfort of my inbox is precious. I'm not giving that up for the dubious promise of less cybercrime. No way. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20210331145351/https://mnmnotmail.org/faq.html https://web.archive.org/web/20210331145351/https://mnmnotmai... https://web.archive.org/web/20210227095626/https://mnmnotmail.org/rationale.html https://web.archive.org/web/20210227095626/https://mnmnotmai...

shkkmo 5y ago

Given that you could easily "unfederate" SMTP/pop3 and have the exact same model, I don't see how exactly the lack of federation will be a selling point. I see any value in TMTP in the improvements as a protocol and I think it will be only be hurt by having no provision for federation in the protocol.

networkimprov 5y ago
A TMTP server could act as a proxy between a client and service; there are a few use cases for that (mentioned in FAQ, but not in current protocol draft). I'm not aware of any use cases for store-and-forward federation that aren't better served by a client-server network. And I've been thinking about this around the clock for four years :-)

josephg 5y ago

If email worked the way those sites do, I'd need a microsoft webmail account to talk to microsoft webmail people. And a gmail account to talk to gmail people. And an apple account to talk to people there. And so on. That would be a much worse experience of email than we have today. Federation in email is used constantly and ubiquitously. Why would anyone want to turn it off?

networkimprov 5y ago
I don't mean to be impolite, but it seems like you haven't read any of the links I posted.
- josephg 5y ago
  Well, the website is currently being down / DNS-squatted. I read the FAQ through the wayback machine[1], and it doesn't make an argument beyond cybercrime. I don't care enough about stopping cybercrime to stop using email. And I think most of the world feels the same way. Email is simply too useful. And if the proposal is to replace it with someone non-federated, no thanks. I'd rather use a federated protocol with spam and phishing emails than use a tangled mess of centralized services, each with their own accounts and governance. Being able to email anyone in the world from the comfort of my inbox is precious. I'm not giving that up for the dubious promise of less cybercrime. No way. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20210331145351/https://mnmnotmail.org/faq.html https://web.archive.org/web/20210331145351/https://mnmnotmai... https://web.archive.org/web/20210227095626/https://mnmnotmail.org/rationale.html https://web.archive.org/web/20210227095626/https://mnmnotmai...