2 ms·
The AT protocol is designed to fix this. If email ran on AT, you could take your cortesoft@gmail.com account and move it to Microsoft or even your own server.
by criddell 2y ago
The AT protocol is designed to fix this. If email ran on AT, you could take your cortesoft@gmail.com account and move it to Microsoft or even your own server.
- kstrauser 2y agoUnderstood, but... was that in dire need of fixing? We're all pretty acclimated to it over the decades we've used email. That isn't to say we can't or shouldn't improve things. It's more that I'm not convinced the problem here is important enough to justify the complexity of the solution.
- cortesoft 2y agoPeople have worked around this problem by choosing an account at a well known, long lasting, centralized service. This is why people have email accounts on gmail instead of a smaller provider; they know the email will last and they can maintain control of it. Same for twitter and facebook accounts. If the whole point is to get away from centralized services and move to a federated model, that problem needs to be solved.
- criddell 2y agoFor some people, it would be a big deal if Google suddenly locked their account. They might say it’s worth it.
- jrm4 2y agoIn what universe do you think the Google corporation would allow people to violate their trademark on another's server? Not technically, but legally. The more I roll over this AT thing in my head, the dumber it really sounds. The skin-in-the-game nature of tying names to servers, and also -- this is the important part -- the fact anyone can make their own server, is an infinitely better solution.
- criddell 2y agoI think you misunderstood. kstrauser and I were using gmail as an analogy. You’re right about Google owning gmail. That was my point - you don’t really own anything. If they lock you out, you’re screwed. I agree that the fact anyone can make their own server is great and I’m glad the AT protocol supports that.