nanog mailing list archives
Re: the e-mail of the future is the e-mail oft the past, was Enough port 26 talk...
From: Tei <oscar.vives () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 18:46:07 +0100
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 09:21, Bjørn Mork <bjorn () mork no> wrote: ..
open protocols, just shut off SMTP completely. They'll probably "invent" something much better as an excuse... And the masses will love them for that, because it finally removed the spam "problem". And everyone has a gmail account anyway, so why bother with outside email?
I think the newsgroups died because was expensive for ISPs and filled with nasty stuff (warez and porn). Gopher died because HTML was a improvement in every possible way. IRC still exist, because it don't need to be hosted by a ISP. Forums still exist. Mail list still exist (we are on one) Homesites where replaced by blogs. Gmail? G Suite accounts are expensive. I believe you have to pay by email address and get quite pricey. "Free" alternatives have a place because can be cheaper than that. Gmail have not added the "Foo has read your message" or "Foo is replying to your email". Two things that would be easy for them to do in Gmail to Gmail communication, and would be must-have features for a mail user. So maybe they don't aim to world domination? Is very hard to replace a open protocol, wrapping may work if the protocol is mostly abandoned (IRC) but thats not the case for email. I don't think email is going to be replaced soon. -- -- ℱin del ℳensaje.
Current thread:
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request], (continued)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Jason Hellenthal via NANOG (Jan 12)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan (Jan 12)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Jason Hellenthal via NANOG (Jan 12)
- Enough port 26 talk... Richard (Jan 12)
- Re: Enough port 26 talk... Bjørn Mork (Jan 13)
- Re: Enough port 26 talk... John Levine (Jan 13)
- Message not available
- Re: the e-mail of the future is the e-mail oft the past, was Enough port 26 talk... John R. Levine (Jan 14)
- Re: the e-mail of the future is the e-mail oft the past, was Enough port 26 talk... Miles Fidelman (Jan 14)
- Re: the e-mail of the future is the e-mail oft the past, was Enough port 26 talk... Bjørn Mork (Jan 15)
- Re: the e-mail of the future is the e-mail oft the past, was Enough port 26 talk... Stephen Satchell (Jan 15)
- Re: the e-mail of the future is the e-mail oft the past, was Enough port 26 talk... Tei (Jan 15)
- Re: the e-mail of the future is the e-mail oft the past, was Enough port 26 talk... James Downs (Jan 15)
- RE: the e-mail of the future is the e-mail oft the past, was Enough port 26 talk... Keith Medcalf (Jan 15)
- Re: the e-mail of the future is the e-mail oft the past, was Enough port 26 talk... Grant Taylor via NANOG (Jan 15)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan (Jan 12)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] valdis . kletnieks (Jan 12)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan (Jan 12)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Ross Tajvar (Jan 12)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan (Jan 12)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] valdis . kletnieks (Jan 12)