3 ms·
Here’s an idea Make a new protocol for this decade, that isn’t email. HTTP is supported nearly everywhere SMTP is. Just build something over that, and this ti
by EGreg 4y ago
Here’s an idea
Make a new protocol for this decade, that isn’t email.
HTTP is supported nearly everywhere SMTP is. Just build something over that, and this time around make sure to avoid SPAM bullshit.
People shouldn’t be able to just message you based on your address. They receive a capability to email you. People can be empowered to give out your capabilities. If a particular such branch leads to spam, you simply cut off that branch and boom, no new user can reach you with that capability anymore. Hashes of Public keys can identify users.
- deknos 4y agoactually something similar was proposed by djb with email2000. sadly it got never picked up.
- dredmorbius 4y agohttps://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ The problem isn't the port. The problem is the behaviour. HTTP itself is on its way out, you should be recommending HTTPS if you're going to go this route. Increasingly, I find HTTP(S) requests are blocked by various mechanisms, typically CAPTCHAs or similar. And the problem ultimately with email isn't the network requests, by and large, it's the spam. Reimplement some universally-accessible messaging protocol over another port or service and you'll simply find you've kicked the can and inherited the old problems. I'm not saying SMTP is faultless (for a rather tongue-in-cheek take, see <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32587346 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32587346> and responses within that subthread and elsewhere on the post, particularly <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32591880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32591880>). But you'll have to do more than just swap port numbers to fix it.