4 ms·

FTP is an absolutely bonkers protocol. I’ve written lengthy posts in here in the past detailing why that protocol needs to die. Email is another clusterfuck of

FTP is an absolutely bonkers protocol. I’ve written lengthy posts in here in the past detailing why that protocol needs to die. Email is another clusterfuck of a protocol (well, several protocols) that barely functions despite dozens of modern pseudo-standards plastered over it. I’ve written extensively about that too. DNS is frequently the source of amplification DDoS attacks. It’s another protocol that made sense once upon a time but has struggled to keep pace with modern advancements in technology IRC is probably the best of the bunch here but even that has struggled to keep pace and can be subject to undocumented behaviours (like line length). …and these are the protocols still in use. The ones replaced by HTTP were either crazier or over simplistic that they offered nothing over HTTP. I’ve written my own clients for every one of those examples and had to deal with the pains of their protocols. I’ve also written my own web browser. And while HTTP has some warts too, I’d take that over FTP and SMTP any day of the week.

guerrilla 5y ago
I've done POP3 and SMTP and they didn't seem TOO bad but those were just toy implementations which didn't have to work in the real world and I gather things have gotten pretty complex and ugly since then. What would you suggest to replace e-mail while retaining its flexibility?
- laumars 5y ago
  SMTP doesn’t really have a universally agreed way of handling authentication, error handling nor even encryption. There are several standards floating about, many of which are little more than pseudo-standards. > What would you suggest to replace e-mail while retaining its flexibility? There’s no reason why we cannot redesign the email paradigm around a totally new protocol. The problem isn’t that’s it’s technically difficult, it’s that SMTP is too prevalent now. It would take someone like Google abusing their market share so bring in a successor. Also any replacement would need to be at a protocol level. A lot of the attempts I’ve seen have also tried to modernise the experience as well (like Google Wave) but the reason email is successful is because it is familiar.
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    https://jmap.io/ https://jmap.io/
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - _flux 5y ago
      As far as I can see, jmap only provides means to upload email to your email provider, it doesn't actually tell how that email ends up from one email provider to another, which is what SMTP does. Granted it's already nicer for clients not to need to configure SMTP to begin with.
      - MayeulC 5y ago
        Yes, one confusing aspect of SMTP is that there is a server-server part (listening on port 25) and a client-server part (465 or so, usually authenticated). I haven't dug in-depth, so maybe they are exactly the same protocol though. Acessing port 25 of server is usually blocked by ISPs as a way to prevent spam.
        whizzter 5y ago
        The difference in ports is due to SSL/TLS expected to be automatically applied on 465 iirc like 80/443 for HTTP(S) (you can also encrypt 25 by issuing STARTTLS after setting up a connection but it's not the default and might fail I think). Authentication with mail is separate, usually to allow for relaying whilst anyone can usually drop emails IFF your server is the destination. Confusing and needlessly complex? Yep. Natural result as of uncontrolled evolution? Yep.
      - billpg 5y ago
        One of the big mistakes with the design of IMAP was that there wasn't a standard Out-Box where a client could rely on the IMAP server for sending the email. I'd have loved to see a world where mail clients only had to implement IMAP and nothing else.
hericium 5y ago
> Email is another clusterfuck of a protocol (well, several protocols) that barely functions despite dozens of modern pseudo-standards plastered over it. I’ve written extensively about that too. SMTP is one of last of decentralized open communication protocols that is still widely used by business. It evolved over time, gained some additions and stayed alive. The biggest issue I have with e-mail nowadays is companies like Microsoft and Google acting like they go out of their way to break protocols and deliver less and less messages from perfectly well working but decentralized sources. Microsoft is especially bad of the two, with years-long tradition of acting against standards (Outlook Express connecting to recipients' MX, cloud offering accepting messages for delivery and never delivering them [1] etc). Google, I believe, as soon as they find a better way to get hold on user's invoices and receipts, will teach their users that they should use something else instead. Stating that standard barely functions just because anti-privacy corporations only pretend to use standards in way there were intended, but concentrate on breaking them, is not how I would describe current state of e-mail-related stuff. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27980192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27980192
- tptacek 5y ago
  The "decentralization" of SMTP comes from the high level architecture of store-and-forward. It has very little to do with the protocol, which could be expressed more effectively and cleanly on HTTP2 or HTTP3 (it won't be, but should) without risking any of its "openness".
  - hericium 5y ago
    Decentralization was not a quest when those protocols were created. It pretty much became "a thing" with blockchains. It previously... just "was". It started "not being anymore" with corporations - and once again I bow before Microsoft and Google - using less and less lube over time when telling their own clients what their role is at the ecosystem. I will absolutely fight any attempt at calling e-mail protocols broken just because a corporations can't figure out their revenue around it.
    - 5y ago
networkimprov 5y ago
You might like TMTP from the mnm open source project (my work).

guerrilla 5y ago

I've done POP3 and SMTP and they didn't seem TOO bad but those were just toy implementations which didn't have to work in the real world and I gather things have gotten pretty complex and ugly since then. What would you suggest to replace e-mail while retaining its flexibility?

laumars 5y ago
SMTP doesn’t really have a universally agreed way of handling authentication, error handling nor even encryption. There are several standards floating about, many of which are little more than pseudo-standards. > What would you suggest to replace e-mail while retaining its flexibility? There’s no reason why we cannot redesign the email paradigm around a totally new protocol. The problem isn’t that’s it’s technically difficult, it’s that SMTP is too prevalent now. It would take someone like Google abusing their market share so bring in a successor. Also any replacement would need to be at a protocol level. A lot of the attempts I’ve seen have also tried to modernise the experience as well (like Google Wave) but the reason email is successful is because it is familiar.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  https://jmap.io/ https://jmap.io/
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - _flux 5y ago
    As far as I can see, jmap only provides means to upload email to your email provider, it doesn't actually tell how that email ends up from one email provider to another, which is what SMTP does. Granted it's already nicer for clients not to need to configure SMTP to begin with.
    - MayeulC 5y ago
      Yes, one confusing aspect of SMTP is that there is a server-server part (listening on port 25) and a client-server part (465 or so, usually authenticated). I haven't dug in-depth, so maybe they are exactly the same protocol though. Acessing port 25 of server is usually blocked by ISPs as a way to prevent spam.
      - whizzter 5y ago
        The difference in ports is due to SSL/TLS expected to be automatically applied on 465 iirc like 80/443 for HTTP(S) (you can also encrypt 25 by issuing STARTTLS after setting up a connection but it's not the default and might fail I think). Authentication with mail is separate, usually to allow for relaying whilst anyone can usually drop emails IFF your server is the destination. Confusing and needlessly complex? Yep. Natural result as of uncontrolled evolution? Yep.
    - billpg 5y ago
      One of the big mistakes with the design of IMAP was that there wasn't a standard Out-Box where a client could rely on the IMAP server for sending the email. I'd have loved to see a world where mail clients only had to implement IMAP and nothing else.

hericium 5y ago

> Email is another clusterfuck of a protocol (well, several protocols) that barely functions despite dozens of modern pseudo-standards plastered over it. I’ve written extensively about that too. SMTP is one of last of decentralized open communication protocols that is still widely used by business. It evolved over time, gained some additions and stayed alive. The biggest issue I have with e-mail nowadays is companies like Microsoft and Google acting like they go out of their way to break protocols and deliver less and less messages from perfectly well working but decentralized sources. Microsoft is especially bad of the two, with years-long tradition of acting against standards (Outlook Express connecting to recipients' MX, cloud offering accepting messages for delivery and never delivering them [1] etc). Google, I believe, as soon as they find a better way to get hold on user's invoices and receipts, will teach their users that they should use something else instead. Stating that standard barely functions just because anti-privacy corporations only pretend to use standards in way there were intended, but concentrate on breaking them, is not how I would describe current state of e-mail-related stuff. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27980192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27980192

tptacek 5y ago
The "decentralization" of SMTP comes from the high level architecture of store-and-forward. It has very little to do with the protocol, which could be expressed more effectively and cleanly on HTTP2 or HTTP3 (it won't be, but should) without risking any of its "openness".
- hericium 5y ago
  Decentralization was not a quest when those protocols were created. It pretty much became "a thing" with blockchains. It previously... just "was". It started "not being anymore" with corporations - and once again I bow before Microsoft and Google - using less and less lube over time when telling their own clients what their role is at the ecosystem. I will absolutely fight any attempt at calling e-mail protocols broken just because a corporations can't figure out their revenue around it.
  - 5y ago

networkimprov 5y ago

You might like TMTP from the mnm open source project (my work).