4 ms·

You don't seem to have much appreciation for how elegantly handled email is. I for one have awe & respect for works like Dovecot, which can elegantly decompose

You don't seem to have much appreciation for how elegantly handled email is. I for one have awe & respect for works like Dovecot, which can elegantly decompose a couple different ingress-email pieces of work into special-purpose daemons that each can be scaled & operated independently. The system is practically ancient at this point but a model of how powerful & amazing clearly separated concerns & loose coupled systems are. You've been persistently negative & calling this all a mess. But it's unclear what you think is elegant & graceful, that does work well. And most of your accusations about things being bad and awful and messy and wild west and postel's law fallacy... none of them have refutable claims. None of them make a position that anyone can argue with. You just spread negativity around & insult thinks in vague terms. It's not very hackerly of you to make a bunch of mean-spirited assertions that arent even backed up enough for anyone else to go verify or test. Cut the FUD man. Adjust your attitude some. Don't be Mr Rain. Not cool. Be cool.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
It's both true than Dovecot is an elegantly designed piece of software and the protocoles surrounding email are a complete mess with decades of bolted on additions and a most used implementation - Gmail - which likes to do things in peculiar ways. I think the complaints you see here are entirely legitimate. Anyone having been doing this job long enough knows that designing good protocoles is insanely hard and exemples of poorly designed ones in the commercial world abound. It would have been more surprising for the feediverse to get that entirely right than the reverse. I say that while agreeing with the original comment which points out that a good implementation should solely focus on the specification and leave everything else to the clients.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago

It's both true than Dovecot is an elegantly designed piece of software and the protocoles surrounding email are a complete mess with decades of bolted on additions and a most used implementation - Gmail - which likes to do things in peculiar ways. I think the complaints you see here are entirely legitimate. Anyone having been doing this job long enough knows that designing good protocoles is insanely hard and exemples of poorly designed ones in the commercial world abound. It would have been more surprising for the feediverse to get that entirely right than the reverse. I say that while agreeing with the original comment which points out that a good implementation should solely focus on the specification and leave everything else to the clients.