undefined | Better HN

0 pointsinopinatus7y ago0 comments

If anything it sounds closer in outline to djb's proposed Internet Mail 2000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Mail_2000) in which initial storage is the responsibility of the sender, not the recipient, thereby making spam much more expensive.

This implementation, however - especially centralized tracking & policy enforcement, and HTTP as the delivery substrate instead of some properly designed protocol - typify everything I dislike about Google's product design choices. And if the open invitation to phishing wasn't bad enough, expiring messages sound to me like a built-for-purpose gaslighting tool.

0 comments

ajnin7y ago

> djb's proposed Internet Mail 2000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Mail_2000) in which initial storage is the responsibility of the sender

Seems even better for spammers and advertisers of the world since they wouldn't even have to send mail nor store it, they could just write mail server software to trivially generate it on demand, and they would instantly know who's opening their mail.

inopinatusOP7y ago

No, that won't happen, because the consequences are severe: they're instantly, globally, permanently and publicly blacklisted as a spam server.

e12e7y ago

That's interesting - I hadn't thought about greylisting like that; but I suppose that's one way to look at it. The sender needs to queue the mail, which effectively means "take responsibility for initial storage".

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse