9 ms·

The benefit of email is its ubiquity and existing deployment. Throwing it away for a new protocol loses all existing value.

by mvid 2y ago

gjsman-1000 2y ago
The same could be said of HTTP, but we threw it away in favor of HTTPS. Thank goodness we did - and I don’t think anyone wants to go back to the time we tried securing HTTP without HTTPS. Again, my proposal is not that we completely kill classic email - but rather, we make a new standard, the big players get on board, and there’s a clear deadline that says “your emails will always be junk past this date if they don’t comply.” They’ll still arrive though. Nobody wants their emails to go to Junk automatically - that’s incentive enough. This is like what we did with HTTP. There came a day where HTTP login screens now have warnings in many browsers. But they still work.
- crote 2y ago
  But we didn't. There are still plenty of HTTP-only devices out there, and there isn't a single browser out there which refuses to work with HTTP servers. Heck, you don't even get a warning if you're just reading the website - you only get that when you try to log in! If we can't do the equivalent of "your emails will always be junk past this date if they don’t comply" with HTTP, what makes you think we can do it with email?
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    I answer that, email is a very different beast than HTTP. 1. If we were to transition to my hypothetical Email2, that doesn't mean it's all or nothing. The transition to HTTPS, does not mean that HTTP no longer is readable. Similarly, the transition would not mean classic emails are automatically unreadable either - but there's a strong incentive for corporations relying on it to fix it. Hypothetically, there would be an MX2, and an MX record. MX would be the fallback for if MX2 sending is not available. So if an out-of-date client from 10 years ago sends an email, it finds the MX record and sends it, no problem. However, the receiver expecting MX2, automatically classifies the email as Insecure and Junk. Meanwhile, an MX2-enabled sender could identify the MX record for a website that does not support MX2 yet, and still deliver the message. 2. Email is not the same as a device. Most emails are sent from an email server with hundreds of inboxes. Take Google and Microsoft - they are 40% of global email traffic. Add Yahoo, GoDaddy, and the other big names, and you're well on the way. Unlike HTTP, the transition may actually be much quicker, because self-hosting email is not very popular (and those that do, are using commercial or open-source packages which could easily add support).
  - j-bos 2y ago
    I use firefox and always get a warning when accessing an http only site.
    - rebane2001 2y ago
      I just tried http://example.org http://example.org in firefox and chrome, neither gave me a warning. I do get a redirect or warning for http sites in firefox focus, but that's separate from normal firefox.

The benefit of email is its ubiquity and existing deployment. Throwing it away for a new protocol loses all existing value.

by mvid 2y ago

The benefit of email is its ubiquity and existing deployment. Throwing it away for a new protocol loses all existing value.

gjsman-1000 2y ago

The same could be said of HTTP, but we threw it away in favor of HTTPS. Thank goodness we did - and I don’t think anyone wants to go back to the time we tried securing HTTP without HTTPS. Again, my proposal is not that we completely kill classic email - but rather, we make a new standard, the big players get on board, and there’s a clear deadline that says “your emails will always be junk past this date if they don’t comply.” They’ll still arrive though. Nobody wants their emails to go to Junk automatically - that’s incentive enough. This is like what we did with HTTP. There came a day where HTTP login screens now have warnings in many browsers. But they still work.

crote 2y ago
But we didn't. There are still plenty of HTTP-only devices out there, and there isn't a single browser out there which refuses to work with HTTP servers. Heck, you don't even get a warning if you're just reading the website - you only get that when you try to log in! If we can't do the equivalent of "your emails will always be junk past this date if they don’t comply" with HTTP, what makes you think we can do it with email?
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  I answer that, email is a very different beast than HTTP. 1. If we were to transition to my hypothetical Email2, that doesn't mean it's all or nothing. The transition to HTTPS, does not mean that HTTP no longer is readable. Similarly, the transition would not mean classic emails are automatically unreadable either - but there's a strong incentive for corporations relying on it to fix it. Hypothetically, there would be an MX2, and an MX record. MX would be the fallback for if MX2 sending is not available. So if an out-of-date client from 10 years ago sends an email, it finds the MX record and sends it, no problem. However, the receiver expecting MX2, automatically classifies the email as Insecure and Junk. Meanwhile, an MX2-enabled sender could identify the MX record for a website that does not support MX2 yet, and still deliver the message. 2. Email is not the same as a device. Most emails are sent from an email server with hundreds of inboxes. Take Google and Microsoft - they are 40% of global email traffic. Add Yahoo, GoDaddy, and the other big names, and you're well on the way. Unlike HTTP, the transition may actually be much quicker, because self-hosting email is not very popular (and those that do, are using commercial or open-source packages which could easily add support).
- j-bos 2y ago
  I use firefox and always get a warning when accessing an http only site.
  - rebane2001 2y ago
    I just tried http://example.org http://example.org in firefox and chrome, neither gave me a warning. I do get a redirect or warning for http sites in firefox focus, but that's separate from normal firefox.