[Operators] spam resistance
dave at cridland.net
Fri May 24 09:00:01 UTC 2013
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at stpeter.im>wrote:
> On 5/23/13 4:50 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
> > 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
> > tried.
> I completely agree!
Ah, that makes a lot more sense, yes.
Though I'd still point out that in terms of federating XMPP enterprises,
and so on, there's a lot of domains which *could* federate.
Some 15,000 Lync domains potentially, for instance.
Don't you feel embarrassed that Microsoft is now better at open standards
than Google in this area? :-)
> 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
> understand why...
I think email was different for three reasons:
1) Email came about mostly before the Internet took off - indeed, there's
an argument that the Internet expansion was driven by email, not the other
way around. This placed restrictions on how email could grow.
2) SMTP was chosen as the lowest common denominator; it's a gatewaying
protocol at heart (as made obvious when you look at early design MTAs like
sendmail). XMPP, however, has end-to-end properties, so it's harder to use
for gatewaying to non-XMPP networks together. (Though people seem to manage
3) The way advertising now operates (and it may very well change) relies on
having as much personal and behavioural information on the subjects as
possible - there's no incentive for networks to federate if they're
consumer-grade and large enough, it's better for their advertising to be a
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Operators