3 ms·
So that’s an argument about a protocol preference not an open ness one. Which frankly makes a lot of sense and wouldn’t have confused me.
by kasey_junk 1y ago
So that’s an argument about a protocol preference not an open ness one. Which frankly makes a lot of sense and wouldn’t have confused me.
- the_mitsuhiko 1y ago> So that’s an argument about a protocol preference not an open ness one. Just to make sure the differences are clear: with username and password and IMAP I can use an RFC standardized protocol to sign into an inbox and I do not need Google's permission. The oauth flow they have is neither standardized (XOAUTH2 is not a standard as far as I know at least), requires provider specific logic (Outlook is different to Google) and most importantly requires me to get Google's permission to sign in. I need to get a client_id with the necessary scope, and that is only granted after a review by Google. [1] [1]: asterisk is that a development only app can authenticate up to 100 users, and those users need to be explicitly whitelisted in the dev panel.
- tptacek 1y agoThat's an appeal to IETF canon, which might be a valid concern (I wouldn't share it, as an opponent of the IETF) but remains orthogonal to "openness". A protocol is open if it's published and especially if it's widely used, which this configuration is.
- the_mitsuhiko 1y agoI think you're hyper focused on a point I wasn't making.