[Operators] spam resistance (was: Re: google abandoning XMPP??)

Matthew Wild mwild1 at gmail.com
Thu May 23 09:12:54 UTC 2013


On 23 May 2013 00:35, Justin Uberti <juberti at google.com> wrote:
> That seems like an overly cynical assessment of the situation. Speaking as
> an individual, it is sad that spammers were more willing to adopt XMPP than
> other IM networks, but so it goes.

To pick on that last point - it's just not true. Other networks (ICQ,
MSN, etc.) are (or have in their past been) plagued with spam. It
always surprised me that we *didn't* have such an issue on XMPP. No
doubt Google has made it an interesting target though (with the
ability to correlate their harvested email addresses with XMPP
accounts), and in recent months spammers have finally put 2+2
together. Hardly unexpected.

I think the point of Peter's email was that we have lots of options
open to us for tackling spam, and none of those were followed up by
folks at Google (for whatever reason). That's fact, and not just
cynicism.

The cynicism comes in when folks make the obvious logical jump that
Google are simply clinging to this issue as one way to rationalize
their predetermined move away from XMPP. Such is pure speculation of
course, but can hardly fail to be considered given the known facts.
How much spam does SMTP receive? Was SMTP a "rich" protocol designed
for the cloud? So when is Gmail turning off SMTP support?

Nevertheless for my part I think this affects me little. It's sad,
yes, but we know XMPP can handle itself well enough without Google
already. Meanwhile a lot of good things have come from Google's
direction over the years to improve the network, including Jingle,
widespread SRV support, mandatory c2s TLS, and even just the proof
that massive scale federated XMPP services can exist! I'm not sure we
can ask for much more :)

Regards,
Matthew


More information about the Operators mailing list