Discussion:
where do I sign up?
Joshua N Pritikin
2006-01-25 11:50:30 UTC
Permalink
I read:

http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/Proposals/IM2000/

Sounds like a great idea.

Is there any service provider yet?

Is there any IM2000 software under development?
--
Make April 15 just another day, visit http://fairtax.org
The Famous Brett Watson
2006-01-25 12:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joshua N Pritikin
Is there any service provider yet?
Is there any IM2000 software under development?
This list hasn't seen any traffic since May 2005, if that tells you
anything. If there's any current, ongoing work on IM2000, I am not aware
of it.

Personally, I am working on a mail system (as part of a PhD thesis)
which bears important similarities to Dan Bernstein's IM2000 proposal,
but looks nothing like the IM2000 implementations that have been
discussed here. I'm hoping to release something workable as free
software when I'm done (within one year).

I'd be interested to hear about any other "revolutionary" approaches
anyone is taking to the mail system. Most of the work I've encountered
in my research (aside from IM2000) takes more of an "evolutionary"
approach to the problem -- attempting to retro-fit spam-resistance back
into SMTP. The few radical proposals I know of have, like IM2000, gone
nowhere in practice.

Regards,
TFBW
Joshua N Pritikin
2006-01-25 15:07:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Famous Brett Watson
Post by Joshua N Pritikin
Is there any service provider yet?
Is there any IM2000 software under development?
This list hasn't seen any traffic since May 2005, if that tells you
anything. If there's any current, ongoing work on IM2000, I am not aware
of it.
Oh dear.
Post by The Famous Brett Watson
Personally, I am working on a mail system (as part of a PhD thesis)
which bears important similarities to Dan Bernstein's IM2000 proposal,
but looks nothing like the IM2000 implementations that have been
discussed here. I'm hoping to release something workable as free
software when I'm done (within one year).
Well .. good luck. I'm interested, for one. IMHO, the most important
thing about a new mail system is backward compatibility. Any proposal
needs to interoperate with SMTP very, very well otherwise I can't
imagine that many people will adopt it.
Steve Carter
2006-01-25 15:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joshua N Pritikin
Well .. good luck. I'm interested, for one. IMHO, the most important
thing about a new mail system is backward compatibility. Any proposal
needs to interoperate with SMTP very, very well otherwise I can't
imagine that many people will adopt it.
Certainly true if the effort is to be led by us geeks. However, in commerce
there is a need for a means of getting large authenticated attachments from
principal to principal in different organizations using only web and email
protocols. Someone with the right contacts, say Royal Mail, would be able to
implement such a service and charge a nominal fee for it, and regular SMTP
mail's role in business would be seriously eroded.
--
http://www.oldyorksalsa.com/
New York Salsa from Old York City
Peter J. Holzer
2006-01-25 16:12:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joshua N Pritikin
Post by The Famous Brett Watson
Personally, I am working on a mail system (as part of a PhD thesis)
which bears important similarities to Dan Bernstein's IM2000 proposal,
but looks nothing like the IM2000 implementations that have been
discussed here. I'm hoping to release something workable as free
software when I'm done (within one year).
Well .. good luck. I'm interested, for one. IMHO, the most important
thing about a new mail system is backward compatibility. Any proposal
needs to interoperate with SMTP very, very well otherwise I can't
imagine that many people will adopt it.
Given the plethora of different IM and P2P protocols in use today, I am
not convinced any more that this is necessary. Write a nice client
program which lets people do the same thing as they can do via email
except with a few extra bells and whistles and without spam and they
won't care much. They still have Outlook (or whatever) for
"old-fashioned email". Of course if you give them a client which can
also access their pop and imap accounts, that would be a bonus.

hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Ich sehe nun ein, dass Computer wenig
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | geeignet sind, um sich was zu merken.
| | | ***@hjp.at |
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Holger Lembke in dan-am
CLAY SHENTRUP
2006-01-25 18:07:09 UTC
Permalink
i hope your thesis will produce some interesting work. i have been
wondering actually, about the "next gen" email system being implemented as
some kind of jabber extension..or using smilar xml-based concepts. i think
the biggest two issues any email replacement has got to solve are pervasive
encryption/authentication/repudiability/perfect-forward-secrecy, and
unsolicited commercial email.

i don't know that i agree with the idea of the sender's storing the message
for the recipient to download it, although it is interesting. either way,
it takes care of verifying the accuracy of the sender's address, which is
what makes jabber so great as an im protocol. i would envision something
where a recipient can mark a message as "spam", and his server can send a
"spam complaint" to the sender's server. better yet, authorization
requirements could be set up, just like with jabber. you'd actually see a
request to allow someone to message you, and until you authorized him, he
couldn't. this could be contingent upon things like "spam score" of the
message. messages with a low enough score (configurable by the user) could
be allowed to pass without authorization.

i think the most important thing is that someone develops a system that is
really good, and addresses all the important issues, and has an
implementation, not just a well written spec. we need a replacement for
email that is usable and practical, and offers pervasive encryption (along
with repudiable authentication and perfect forward secrecy). my mom
shouldn't have to know a single thing about encryption to receive an
encrypted message from me. we've been using this outdated crap called email
for tooooo long. if you're gonna put in the work to offer a solution, my
suggestion is to make a real, usable, practical, solution. and if you do
it, i'll be more than happy to donate some cash to the cause. 50 bucks here
or there is worth it, and maybe others would donate as well, if you could
convince them of the importance of it. geeks of course..they'd all have to
be geeks cause no one else realizes there's a problem.

one final word..please, dear god, do not try to make something that is
backward compatible with smtp or any part of current email. backward
compatibility is what stifles the progress of technology, and there's no
good reason for it in this case. if you want to make a system where normal
email users can contact a "neumail" user, and vice versa, just make a
neumail service provider that allows both. it could just look at the
address and check to see whether it's a neumail address, and if not, send it
via smtp. for receiving, it could just have a mail server on it as well,
and legacy "email" could have its own inbox or however you would want to
implement it. there is no need to alter the "neumal" protocol itself to
deal with legacy email.

cheerio,
clay

--
"..any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it
requires--
a wiretap requires a court order. ..Constitutional guarantees are in place
when it comes
to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the
Constitution."

George W. Bush, 2004 April 20

"..the NSA has been monitoring phone calls and e-mails in which one party to
the
conversation was inside the United States. The warrantless wiretaps
allegedly fly in
the face of standing federal surveillance law."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180149,00.html

Loading...