3 ms·

I remember using email in an IM-like fashion, having a real-time back and forth conversation. The only difference is that most email clients quote the entire co

I remember using email in an IM-like fashion, having a real-time back and forth conversation. The only difference is that most email clients quote the entire conversation on every reply. A lightweight client could have an IM-like interface that does not quote the original message on replies. Who cares if it's SMTP under the covers, the whole experience could feel quite IM-like and it would have all the other benefits of email (not being locked in to a specific provider being the main one).

brongondwana 5y ago
That's the basic idea behind "Chat over IMAP", which for various reasons hasn't seen as much effort put into it as many of us would like (not that I can talk, I haven't done anything). HN discussion from when it was launched is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19216077 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19216077
paxys 5y ago
The problem is that the moment you try and add even the most basic value-add features, other email clients can't understand you anymore. And this applies to fundamental things like identity verification, encryption and group chats.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  Technically I don't see an issue with doing these things in a portable, standard way. Email signature and encryption (s/mime) has existed for a long time and most mainstream clients know how to handle it. The nut that has still not been cracked very well AFAIK is how to create and share public keys in a seamless way.
  - dijit 5y ago
    For S/MIME you don’t need to share keys. Your private key gets signed by a CA that you both trust. You can even get free S/‘MIME certificates that validate on all clients. People don’t do it because encrypted mail can’t be searched or archived, and it becomes cumbersome to have a wider array of clients.
pseudalopex 5y ago
Like DeltaChat.[1] [1] https://delta.chat/en/ https://delta.chat/en/
leephillips 5y ago
I agree. Email is fast enough to have a real-time conversation, I do it often. Maybe not as instant as WhatsApp, etc, but with other advantages.

brongondwana 5y ago

That's the basic idea behind "Chat over IMAP", which for various reasons hasn't seen as much effort put into it as many of us would like (not that I can talk, I haven't done anything). HN discussion from when it was launched is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19216077 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19216077

paxys 5y ago

The problem is that the moment you try and add even the most basic value-add features, other email clients can't understand you anymore. And this applies to fundamental things like identity verification, encryption and group chats.

throwawayboise 5y ago
Technically I don't see an issue with doing these things in a portable, standard way. Email signature and encryption (s/mime) has existed for a long time and most mainstream clients know how to handle it. The nut that has still not been cracked very well AFAIK is how to create and share public keys in a seamless way.
- dijit 5y ago
  For S/MIME you don’t need to share keys. Your private key gets signed by a CA that you both trust. You can even get free S/‘MIME certificates that validate on all clients. People don’t do it because encrypted mail can’t be searched or archived, and it becomes cumbersome to have a wider array of clients.

pseudalopex 5y ago

Like DeltaChat.[1] [1] https://delta.chat/en/ https://delta.chat/en/

leephillips 5y ago

I agree. Email is fast enough to have a real-time conversation, I do it often. Maybe not as instant as WhatsApp, etc, but with other advantages.