Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 16:34:25 Dan Purgert wrote: >> Lisi Reisz wrote: >> > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 14:05:36 Stefan Monnier wrote: >> >> "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an >> >> unreliable messaging system" >> > >> > Email is getting less and less reliable, so have you given up using >> > it?? >> > :-( >> > >> > Lisi >> >> Email (according to the RFCs) wasn't ever intended to be /reliable/ in >> the first place. It just happens to work that way most of the time. > > :-) It is more reliable and quicker than snail-mail. But it isn't > :reliable!! > And is getting less so. > > Lisi
I'm not sure I understand correctly. The whole concept of mailing is really old and not fit for nowdays (mis)use of the internet. Since couple of years there is initiative going on to implement dkim/spf (dmarc) which will help reduce and overrule the abuses. Some of the bigger mail providers will switch gradually to more strict policies as time goes on and we'll see it. It just takes time. About reliability - I have not seen recently undelivered mails (except bounces between gmain and yahoo ... well, for obvious reasons, which is understandable, taken the dmarc policy yahoo applies). Technology is evolving sometime faster and sometime not, but still going forward, so I am personally curios what the future will look like. For sure the years we live in will be called the spam-era in the history books dealing with e-mail. Perhaps this question about "decentralized reliable instant messaging" should be raised with some of the developers of instant messengers and it can be implemented as a feature, despite the contradiction in the question itself. Thinking about Lizi's story and the postman ... where is in the "decentralized" scenario the "postman", how does he look like ... etc. Just a question of design and smart implementation. I couldn't resist to share my opinion as well regards
