4 ms·

I thought this was obvious, but I guess not. When people say email is broken, they mean that their email client is broken. When people talk about fixing email,

by jmilloy 15y ago

I thought this was obvious, but I guess not. When people say email is broken, they mean that their email client is broken. When people talk about fixing email, they mean producing a better email client. That the OP doesn't get this obscures his message to the point that I don't even think I get what he's saying. In the end, he doesn't disagree with people who say email is broken, because he tells them just to fix the client. Can anyone offer some links to recent/current projects that want to "fix" email by changing the protocol?

ForrestN 15y ago
I think you are probably right that most aren't proposing changing the actual protocol. However, I think part of what the post is reacting to is the marketing around the ideas for new clients, or the perceived need for new clients. I haven't been following this so closely, but the articles I have read seem to position these proposals as changes to e-mail as a system, if not as a protocol. I leave thinking the authors want to do something radical, to alter something longstanding, to go up against giant, ingrained players and conventions. I don't think this post would have happened if we were instead hearing more about "new ways to use e-mail," or "adding functionality to an email client." I think the narrative is more like, as others in the thread have referenced, PG's frighteningly ambitious ideas, more like visionaries who are daring to challenge something so established. Making a new email client that has some extra features is one thing. Changing email forever is another. I think that's what the post is reacting to. Edit: and, anyway, I think sharpening the discussion by invoking the difference between the client and the protocol is useful, and hopefully will make future conversations about this more clear.
fluorid 15y ago
These are PG's words: "This new protocol should be a todo list protocol, not a messaging protocol," http://paulgraham.com/ambitious.html http://paulgraham.com/ambitious.html
- jmilloy 15y ago
  Replacing email isn't fixing email, it's replacing email. When I discovered I couldn't practice running a mile in my house, I went to the local track. I didn't fix my house, I replaced it for this particular task with something else. Isn't this the same? I think PG is in the minority when he considers a conversation over email a "degenerate case" of a TODO list item. A public-writeable personal todo list application is separate from my email client, whether it uses the email protocol to send todo items, or a new protocol to send todo items, or http to put todo items on a centralized database, etc.

by jmilloy 15y ago

ForrestN 15y ago

I think you are probably right that most aren't proposing changing the actual protocol. However, I think part of what the post is reacting to is the marketing around the ideas for new clients, or the perceived need for new clients. I haven't been following this so closely, but the articles I have read seem to position these proposals as changes to e-mail as a system, if not as a protocol. I leave thinking the authors want to do something radical, to alter something longstanding, to go up against giant, ingrained players and conventions. I don't think this post would have happened if we were instead hearing more about "new ways to use e-mail," or "adding functionality to an email client." I think the narrative is more like, as others in the thread have referenced, PG's frighteningly ambitious ideas, more like visionaries who are daring to challenge something so established. Making a new email client that has some extra features is one thing. Changing email forever is another. I think that's what the post is reacting to. Edit: and, anyway, I think sharpening the discussion by invoking the difference between the client and the protocol is useful, and hopefully will make future conversations about this more clear.

fluorid 15y ago

These are PG's words: "This new protocol should be a todo list protocol, not a messaging protocol," http://paulgraham.com/ambitious.html http://paulgraham.com/ambitious.html

jmilloy 15y ago
Replacing email isn't fixing email, it's replacing email. When I discovered I couldn't practice running a mile in my house, I went to the local track. I didn't fix my house, I replaced it for this particular task with something else. Isn't this the same? I think PG is in the minority when he considers a conversation over email a "degenerate case" of a TODO list item. A public-writeable personal todo list application is separate from my email client, whether it uses the email protocol to send todo items, or a new protocol to send todo items, or http to put todo items on a centralized database, etc.