5 ms·
You're absolutely right! Thank you. I'll need to take extra care to focus on the main issue before extending it. I just also want the extensibility to be a c
by Navarr 15y ago
You're absolutely right! Thank you.
I'll need to take extra care to focus on the main issue before extending it.
I just also want the extensibility to be a center focus, so that it can expand to be a synchronization protocol instead of only an email protocol.
- karl_nerd 15y agoCan someone shoot this thing down: What if we think 'data synchronisation protocol' instead of 'e-mail protocol'? E-mail would then be an 'append only' application of this. The protocols focus would be to register a piece of data, keep track of the 'owner' and sharers and maintain synchronisation (preferably in a peer-to-peer way). I know this problem is big, but once it's done in a reliable way it would be simple to build a good e-mail-style communication on top of it.
- JoachimSchipper 15y agoUUCP was pretty much this. E-mail was, in fact, built on top of it; at least Sendmail still supports it. I'm sure you can still find the reasons for the transition to SMTP somewhere. Try, again, Sendmail archives.
- derefr 15y agoYou mean... Google Wave?
- Navarr 15y agoGoogle Wave wasn't a data-synchronization protocol.
- Navarr 15y ago@karl_nerd: You understand what I mean instead of just what I'm saying! <3 hearts for you