[Operators] spam resistance
stpeter at stpeter.im
Thu May 23 23:25:19 UTC 2013
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 5/23/13 4:50 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net
> <mailto:dave at cridland.net>> wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Justin Uberti
> <juberti at google.com <mailto: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.
> I'm not sure sufficient information exists in one place to make a
> statement like that. If it does, I've certainly never seen it.
> I just realized my statement could be parsed 2 different ways. To
> be clear: it is sad that spammers were more willing to adopt
> XMPP*than other IM networks were willing to*. Believe me, we
I completely agree!
It's interesting that open federation is taken for granted in email
(perhaps because people think it's always been that way, even though
it wasn't always that way), whereas it's a tough sell for anything
else (IM, voice, video, social networking, etc.). I still don't quite
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Operators