5 ms·

Your comment could have been more constructive if you have included more "common mistakes" than things you just don't like, the only exception being handle squa

Your comment could have been more constructive if you have included more "common mistakes" than things you just don't like, the only exception being handle squatting. Like, what is a specific benefit of `user@host` as opposed to a single domain---which can be generated on demand---as an identity? (And who is "everything else" here? Almost all non-Mastodon social networks don't use them.) Also a value of the common schema language is not that high, especially when that language is coupled with the serialization format and prevents any improvement.

remram 3y ago
"value is not that high" is exactly the kind of behavior I'm talking about. What's the benefit of user@host? Deployment simplicity, you don't need wildcard domains or wildcard certificates, or worse DNS API access, you can just self-host one app at one domain like everything else. As for who uses this format: email, matrix, XMPP, mastodon/ActivityPub, gnusocial/friendica...
- lifthrasiir 3y ago
  If the supposed benefit is only deployment simplicity, the value is indeed not high because the deployment is not expected to occur that many times. Technical problems are among least important problems in the social network.
  - remram 3y ago
    Your argument is "drawbacks to reinventing are not that high", even though I pointed out both usability and security issues. But what's the advantage? Other that giving the (correct) impression that the supposedly-open-network doesn't want to have anything to do with anybody else? You're coming up with excuses not justifications. And "it looks like it hasn't hurt us too bad yet" is not a great one at that. Self-hosted deployments have barely started rolling out (well, relay is still centralized).
    - lifthrasiir 3y ago
      Do you really want me to use a lengthy bullet list instead of compact prose? > Deployment simplicity, you don't need wildcard domains or wildcard certificates, or worse DNS API access, you can just self-host one app at one domain like everything else. At this point, they are not significantly more difficult than single domains or certificates, thanks to Let's Encrypt and ACME. In fact the requirement for domains and certificates has been always the single biggest hinderance, which inherently prevents self-hosted deployments in masses. Self-hosting is definitely a good option to have, but it is unreasonable to assume that most users can have their own deployment even in the near future. Multiple companies seriously tried to tackle them and have failed so far. As such, individual applications are not in the good position to solve these issues. > I pointed out both usability and security issues. You only have pointed out security issues, which I acknowledged as a single actual mistake. And that only relates to the domain ownership check, so you can fix them without scrapping the entire scheme. I can't really see which usability issue can arise from `@example.com` as opposed to `user@example.com`. For laypersons who would use federated instances, `@user.example.com` and `user@example.com` is literally a single character difference and doesn't really matter much except that `user@example.com` is much more prone to be mistaken as an email address (see below). For users with their own domains, any user name is redundant and `@example.com` is definitely superior. > As for who uses this format: email, matrix, XMPP, mastodon/ActivityPub, gnusocial/friendica... Among others, email is the only protocol that have achieved common usages, distantly followed by Mastodon. Everything else is a nerdy technology which doesn't count as "everyone else". I should note that I have operated an IRC server for more than a decade and I'm very confident that the number of public Matrix servers is even rarer than the dwindling number of public IRC servers. IRC was once popular only because there were no other alternatives, not because it was open (mIRC was a dominant implementation in its heyday anyway). And even Mastodon doesn't exactly use `user@example.com`; it uses `@user@example.com` with a prefix `@`, presumably because it allows for shortened handles (`@user`) while avoids a confusion with email addresses, but that can be also done with a domain-only handle if desired. Like, that has been a feature of DNS for the entire time. The fact that both Mastodon and BlueSky doesn't use the exact email address format shows that the exact handle format is not very relevant, as long as it can account for distributed registration and verification and can't be confused with existing usages (i.e. email addresses).

remram 3y ago

"value is not that high" is exactly the kind of behavior I'm talking about. What's the benefit of user@host? Deployment simplicity, you don't need wildcard domains or wildcard certificates, or worse DNS API access, you can just self-host one app at one domain like everything else. As for who uses this format: email, matrix, XMPP, mastodon/ActivityPub, gnusocial/friendica...

lifthrasiir 3y ago
If the supposed benefit is only deployment simplicity, the value is indeed not high because the deployment is not expected to occur that many times. Technical problems are among least important problems in the social network.
- remram 3y ago
  Your argument is "drawbacks to reinventing are not that high", even though I pointed out both usability and security issues. But what's the advantage? Other that giving the (correct) impression that the supposedly-open-network doesn't want to have anything to do with anybody else? You're coming up with excuses not justifications. And "it looks like it hasn't hurt us too bad yet" is not a great one at that. Self-hosted deployments have barely started rolling out (well, relay is still centralized).
  - lifthrasiir 3y ago
    Do you really want me to use a lengthy bullet list instead of compact prose? > Deployment simplicity, you don't need wildcard domains or wildcard certificates, or worse DNS API access, you can just self-host one app at one domain like everything else. At this point, they are not significantly more difficult than single domains or certificates, thanks to Let's Encrypt and ACME. In fact the requirement for domains and certificates has been always the single biggest hinderance, which inherently prevents self-hosted deployments in masses. Self-hosting is definitely a good option to have, but it is unreasonable to assume that most users can have their own deployment even in the near future. Multiple companies seriously tried to tackle them and have failed so far. As such, individual applications are not in the good position to solve these issues. > I pointed out both usability and security issues. You only have pointed out security issues, which I acknowledged as a single actual mistake. And that only relates to the domain ownership check, so you can fix them without scrapping the entire scheme. I can't really see which usability issue can arise from `@example.com` as opposed to `user@example.com`. For laypersons who would use federated instances, `@user.example.com` and `user@example.com` is literally a single character difference and doesn't really matter much except that `user@example.com` is much more prone to be mistaken as an email address (see below). For users with their own domains, any user name is redundant and `@example.com` is definitely superior. > As for who uses this format: email, matrix, XMPP, mastodon/ActivityPub, gnusocial/friendica... Among others, email is the only protocol that have achieved common usages, distantly followed by Mastodon. Everything else is a nerdy technology which doesn't count as "everyone else". I should note that I have operated an IRC server for more than a decade and I'm very confident that the number of public Matrix servers is even rarer than the dwindling number of public IRC servers. IRC was once popular only because there were no other alternatives, not because it was open (mIRC was a dominant implementation in its heyday anyway). And even Mastodon doesn't exactly use `user@example.com`; it uses `@user@example.com` with a prefix `@`, presumably because it allows for shortened handles (`@user`) while avoids a confusion with email addresses, but that can be also done with a domain-only handle if desired. Like, that has been a feature of DNS for the entire time. The fact that both Mastodon and BlueSky doesn't use the exact email address format shows that the exact handle format is not very relevant, as long as it can account for distributed registration and verification and can't be confused with existing usages (i.e. email addresses).