Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #171052 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-13 05:00 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-09-08 16:20 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 114 — 28 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-08-13 05:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-08-13 06:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-08-15 14:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA> - 2016-08-16 18:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-08-16 22:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-08-17 04:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-08-17 05:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-08-17 13:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-08-15 16:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> - 2016-08-17 08:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 20:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA> - 2016-08-25 20:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 11:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-08-30 15:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 16:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-08-30 16:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 16:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 20:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-08-30 17:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2016-08-30 17:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 18:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 18:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-08-30 23:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 19:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 20:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 21:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 23:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 23:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 01:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-31 00:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-31 01:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 02:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-31 22:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-09-01 12:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-08-31 16:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 16:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 17:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-08-31 17:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-08-31 20:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-09-01 22:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-08-31 18:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 18:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 18:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-08-31 18:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 20:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-08-31 20:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 23:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-31 21:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-09-01 20:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-31 21:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-08-30 18:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 20:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-08-30 21:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 23:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-08-30 21:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 21:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-08-30 22:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-08-30 22:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2016-08-30 17:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 18:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 20:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 20:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 20:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-30 21:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 22:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 22:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 20:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 08:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-08-31 09:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? claude juif <claude.juif@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 11:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-31 14:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? claude juif <claude.juif@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 10:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 21:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 11:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-09-02 15:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-09-02 18:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 15:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-08-31 15:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 20:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-09-01 18:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 20:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> - 2016-09-01 21:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-08-31 16:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? claude juif <claude.juif@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 10:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-09-01 16:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-31 20:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 22:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Ralph Katz <ralph.katz@rcn.com> - 2016-08-17 16:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-08-17 16:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Ralph Katz <ralph.katz@rcn.com> - 2016-08-17 18:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2016-08-17 19:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2016-08-17 20:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 21:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-17 21:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희)" <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> - 2016-09-01 17:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA> - 2016-09-01 22:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 07:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희)" <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> - 2016-09-03 15:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-09-02 11:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희)" <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> - 2016-09-03 15:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-09-07 15:20 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Paul Johnson <baloo@ursamundi.org> - 2016-09-07 15:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? "Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희)" <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> - 2016-09-07 17:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-09-07 19:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Byung-Hee HWANG <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> - 2016-09-08 01:10 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 01:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Michael Lange <klappnase@freenet.de> - 2016-09-08 02:00 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Byung-Hee HWANG <soyeomul@doraji.xyz> - 2016-09-08 05:50 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-09-08 06:30 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2016-09-08 13:40 +0200
Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging? Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-09-08 13:50 +0200
GNU (was Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?) "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2016-09-08 15:20 +0200
Re: GNU (was Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?) Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 15:40 +0200
Re: GNU "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2016-09-08 16:20 +0200
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 20:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbVuh-80h-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171558 |
Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 16:34:25 Dan Purgert wrote: >> Lisi Reisz wrote: >> > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 14:05:36 Stefan Monnier wrote: >> >> "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an >> >> unreliable messaging system" >> > >> > Email is getting less and less reliable, so have you given up using >> > it?? >> > :-( >> > >> > Lisi >> >> Email (according to the RFCs) wasn't ever intended to be /reliable/ in >> the first place. It just happens to work that way most of the time. > > :-) It is more reliable and quicker than snail-mail. But it isn't > :reliable!! > And is getting less so. > > Lisi I'm not sure I understand correctly. The whole concept of mailing is really old and not fit for nowdays (mis)use of the internet. Since couple of years there is initiative going on to implement dkim/spf (dmarc) which will help reduce and overrule the abuses. Some of the bigger mail providers will switch gradually to more strict policies as time goes on and we'll see it. It just takes time. About reliability - I have not seen recently undelivered mails (except bounces between gmain and yahoo ... well, for obvious reasons, which is understandable, taken the dmarc policy yahoo applies). Technology is evolving sometime faster and sometime not, but still going forward, so I am personally curios what the future will look like. For sure the years we live in will be called the spam-era in the history books dealing with e-mail. Perhaps this question about "decentralized reliable instant messaging" should be raised with some of the developers of instant messengers and it can be implemented as a feature, despite the contradiction in the question itself. Thinking about Lizi's story and the postman ... where is in the "decentralized" scenario the "postman", how does he look like ... etc. Just a question of design and smart implementation. I couldn't resist to share my opinion as well regards
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 20:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbVuh-80h-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171565 |
On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 19:50:21 +0200, deloptes wrote: > Thinking about Lizi's story and the postman ... where is in > the "decentralized" scenario the "postman", how does he look like ... etc. He looks just like you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 20:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbVND-8n7-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171565 |
On Tuesday 30 August 2016 18:50:21 deloptes wrote: > I have not seen recently undelivered mails Lucky you! [had to snip quotation from rejecting notification because Zen identified the email as spam!!] So one large and dominating ISP is rejecting emails from an inconvenient, smaller, rival because there are "too many" of them. It was eventually delivered after 4 days, but I had by then sent it again via Gmail's server. As I say, lucky you!!! Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 21:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbWql-b6-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171567 |
On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 19:16:10 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 18:50:21 deloptes wrote: > > I have not seen recently undelivered mails > > Lucky you! Not luck, it's good management. Receiving SMTP servers accept messages which are RFC compliant. If they do not they are playing silly buggers. Have you ever had a message rejected on the grounds it was not RFC compliant? If so (and you are using a smarthost) you need to have words with your ISP. > [had to snip quotation from rejecting notification because Zen identified the > email as spam!!] Don't really follow this. But you allow Zen to determine the nature of your mails? You also give Royal Mail permission to open and peruse the letters you send and receive? > So one large and dominating ISP is rejecting emails from an inconvenient, > smaller, rival because there are "too many" of them. Don't follow this either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 22:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbXFL-1b9-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171572 |
On Tuesday 30 August 2016 19:51:39 Brian wrote: > > So one large and dominating ISP is rejecting emails from an inconvenient, > > smaller, rival because there are "too many" of them. > > Don't follow this either. Because I had to snip the error message. I'll try reporting non-verbatim indirect speech rather than the quotation from the rejection, and see if I am allowed to send it. BT rejected, once a day for several days (which was how often Zen went on trying to send it), an email I had sent my stepdaughter; on the grounds that it had had too many messages from Zen's SMTP server. (Which it mentioned by IP, not name.) And it is because that sounds so incredible that I tried to send the verbatim message. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 22:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbXFM-1b9-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171572 |
On Tuesday 30 August 2016 19:51:39 Brian wrote: > But you allow Zen to determine the nature of > your mails? Since I haven't got my own server I have no choice but to accept it if whatever SMTP server I am using simply rejects the email and refuses to send it. This is the first time it has happened. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 20:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sbVND-8n7-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171565 |
> About reliability - I have not seen recently undelivered mails (except > bounces between gmain and yahoo . Lucky you! Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 08:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sc7c5-7gk-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171568 |
Lisi Reisz wrote: > >> About reliability - I have not seen recently undelivered mails (except >> bounces between gmain and yahoo . > > Lucky you! > > Lisi Luck is something, that is out of scope in terms of software. Use authorized SMTP servers. This means you can not install on your linux box an smtp server, send an email and expect it to be delivered. If it is your provider, change it or talk to them. It is not common that messages are rated as spam, when they come out from legal MX records. As I said DMARC initiative is going on at the moment (and since couple of years) and it will affect the mailing in positive way I hope. regards
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 09:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sc8rw-7Xa-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171596 |
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:27:51 +0200 deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> wrote: > Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > >> About reliability - I have not seen recently undelivered mails > >> (except bounces between gmain and yahoo . > > > > Lucky you! > > > > Lisi > > Luck is something, that is out of scope in terms of software. Use > authorized SMTP servers. Who authorises them, if not the owner of the domain? Should our governments expect to be paid for email server licences? > This means you can not install on your linux > box an smtp server, send an email and expect it to be delivered. I have done so, for about fifteen years. I like it that way. > If > it is your provider, change it or talk to them. It is not common that > messages are rated as spam, when they come out from legal MX records. The MX record is not involved in sending. Many companies outsource their anti-spamming, or for other reasons use completely different sending and receiving servers. What you need are complementary domain host A record and IP address PTR records, pointing to each other, along with an ISP which doesn't host bulk emailers and is otherwise willing to keep itself off blacklists. > As I said DMARC initiative is going on at the moment (and since > couple of years) and it will affect the mailing in positive way I > hope. The main problem with anything like that is that many people have relatively complex email arrangements, e.g. forwarding from a number of email addresses to another, and these tend to get broken by security measures. A couple of years ago my ISP, who had provided email services based on sub-domains, outsourced them to an Exchange-based system using the MS SPF system. I don't use the provided sub-domain, so it didn't involve me, but there was a lot of trouble about it, and eventually the ISP grudgingly provided another pair of MX records for a SMTP server which did not implement this system. Email is still a useful messaging protocol, it is somewhat broken, but the cure absolutely must not be worse than the disease, or we'll all end up using Facebook. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | claude juif <claude.juif@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 11:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sc9xf-cp-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171600 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Hi, Come on guys, the OP ask about instant messaging and mail is everything except instant messaging. IRC with recording bot could do the job. (But it's clearly old and kind of hard to setup) By the way, you could make a simple app based on AMQP protocol to fit your need. Regards, Le 31 août 2016 9:48 AM, "Joe" <joe@jretrading.com> a écrit : On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:27:51 +0200 deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> wrote: > Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > >> About reliability - I have not seen recently undelivered mails > >> (except bounces between gmain and yahoo . > > > > Lucky you! > > > > Lisi > > Luck is something, that is out of scope in terms of software. Use > authorized SMTP servers. Who authorises them, if not the owner of the domain? Should our governments expect to be paid for email server licences? > This means you can not install on your linux > box an smtp server, send an email and expect it to be delivered. I have done so, for about fifteen years. I like it that way. > If > it is your provider, change it or talk to them. It is not common that > messages are rated as spam, when they come out from legal MX records. The MX record is not involved in sending. Many companies outsource their anti-spamming, or for other reasons use completely different sending and receiving servers. What you need are complementary domain host A record and IP address PTR records, pointing to each other, along with an ISP which doesn't host bulk emailers and is otherwise willing to keep itself off blacklists. > As I said DMARC initiative is going on at the moment (and since > couple of years) and it will affect the mailing in positive way I > hope. The main problem with anything like that is that many people have relatively complex email arrangements, e.g. forwarding from a number of email addresses to another, and these tend to get broken by security measures. A couple of years ago my ISP, who had provided email services based on sub-domains, outsourced them to an Exchange-based system using the MS SPF system. I don't use the provided sub-domain, so it didn't involve me, but there was a lot of trouble about it, and eventually the ISP grudgingly provided another pair of MX records for a SMTP server which did not implement this system. Email is still a useful messaging protocol, it is somewhat broken, but the cure absolutely must not be worse than the disease, or we'll all end up using Facebook. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 14:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sccYa-2pg-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171601 |
On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 10:54:53 +0200, claude juif wrote: > > Le 31 août 2016 9:48 AM, "Joe" <joe@jretrading.com> a écrit : > > > > Email is still a useful messaging protocol, it is somewhat broken, but > > the cure absolutely must not be worse than the disease, or we'll all > > end up using Facebook. > Come on guys, the OP ask about instant messaging and mail is everything > except instant messaging. With two machines running mail servers (no smarthosts or any of that nonsense) the messaging is virtually instantaneous. The protocol used has a good track record and is reliable and robust. It might not suit what the OP or his respondents want but the bits and pieces to build such a system are all in Debian. If one machine is down a secondary MX should take up the slack and deliver the message when it comes back online.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | claude juif <claude.juif@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 10:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scvHs-78u-31@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171606 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
2016-08-31 14:31 GMT+02:00 Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk>: > On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 10:54:53 +0200, claude juif wrote: > > > > Le 31 août 2016 9:48 AM, "Joe" <joe@jretrading.com> a écrit : > > > > > > Email is still a useful messaging protocol, it is somewhat broken, but > > > the cure absolutely must not be worse than the disease, or we'll all > > > end up using Facebook. > > > Come on guys, the OP ask about instant messaging and mail is everything > > except instant messaging. > > With two machines running mail servers (no smarthosts or any of that > nonsense) the messaging is virtually instantaneous. The protocol used > has a good track record and is reliable and robust. It might not suit > what the OP or his respondents want but the bits and pieces to build > such a system are all in Debian. > Yep but it will depend on the number of messages (and their rate) sent. Virtually instantaneous for 2 people, but for 500 ? In France we rely heavily on centralised messaging system like Hipchat, or Slack. In the old day, we used bonjour (Apple protocol) for instant messaging with pidgin. Works great but not reliable. If one machine is down a secondary MX should take up the slack and > deliver the message when it comes back online. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 21:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scFGO-5SP-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171600 |
Joe wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:27:51 +0200
> deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Sorry for not being able to answer earlier. There are some points here that
need to be emphasized.
>> Lisi Reisz wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> About reliability - I have not seen recently undelivered mails
>> >> (except bounces between gmain and yahoo .
>> >
>> > Lucky you!
>> >
>> > Lisi
>>
>> Luck is something, that is out of scope in terms of software. Use
>> authorized SMTP servers.
>
> Who authorises them, if not the owner of the domain? Should our
> governments expect to be paid for email server licences?
>
No one authorizes them, but they are free to accept or reject the
communication with you. The same way that you may reject communication with
others
>> This means you can not install on your linux
>> box an smtp server, send an email and expect it to be delivered.
>
> I have done so, for about fifteen years. I like it that way.
>
There are surely way to do this, but in conjunction to the above it boils
down to trust. Trust is fundamental to interaction of any kind.
>> If
>> it is your provider, change it or talk to them. It is not common that
>> messages are rated as spam, when they come out from legal MX records.
>
> The MX record is not involved in sending. Many companies outsource
> their anti-spamming, or for other reasons use completely different
> sending and receiving servers.
>
> What you need are complementary domain host A record and IP address
> PTR records, pointing to each other, along with an ISP which doesn't
> host bulk emailers and is otherwise willing to keep itself off
> blacklists.
>
Yes agreed MX was wrongly stated here by me.
>> As I said DMARC initiative is going on at the moment (and since
>> couple of years) and it will affect the mailing in positive way I
>> hope.
>
> The main problem with anything like that is that many people have
> relatively complex email arrangements, e.g. forwarding from a number of
> email addresses to another, and these tend to get broken by security
> measures. A couple of years ago my ISP, who had provided email services
> based on sub-domains, outsourced them to an Exchange-based system using
> the MS SPF system. I don't use the provided sub-domain, so it didn't
> involve me, but there was a lot of trouble about it, and eventually the
> ISP grudgingly provided another pair of MX records for a SMTP server
> which did not implement this system.
>
... and the SPF was configured by default ("next" > "next" style) ... come
on ...
The problem is trust and trust must be established, perhaps in 5y we'll see
another way of mail communication. I do not follow the future that closely,
but for now DMARC seems to be the only way most of the communities and
companies take. I recently got involved into DMARC related project and it
sounds at least promissing.
> Email is still a useful messaging protocol, it is somewhat broken, but
> the cure absolutely must not be worse than the disease, or we'll all
> end up using Facebook.
It is not broken - the design just gets abused too often.
regards
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 11:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scajE-HB-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171596 |
On Wednesday 31 August 2016 07:27:51 deloptes wrote: > Use authorized > SMTP servers. mailhost.zen.co.uk https://www.zen.co.uk/ As I said, lucky you. Lisi
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-02 15:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scX0Z-67-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171551 |
>> "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an
>> unreliable messaging system"
> Email is getting less and less reliable, so have you given up using it?? :-(
There's unreliable and there's unreliable.
In the XMPP world, the basic protocol will just send the message to the
destination over the existing TCP connection and won't care to check
for some kind of acknowledgment that the message was received.
In theory, the server could react to a TCP disconnect, but that won't
tell it which part of the stream was received and which wasn't, so in
practice, XMPP servers don't even care to check for a TCP disconnect
error in order to detect a possible message loss.
For SIP, in my experience, if I'm not connected when an SIP message comes
in, the SIP server just drops the message silently.
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Curt <curty@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-02 18:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scZFw-1Qn-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171702 |
On 2016-09-02, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: > > In theory, the server could react to a TCP disconnect, but that won't > tell it which part of the stream was received and which wasn't, so in > practice, XMPP servers don't even care to check for a TCP disconnect > error in order to detect a possible message loss. > > For SIP, in my experience, if I'm not connected when an SIP message comes > in, the SIP server just drops the message silently. > You might want to look into a sneakernet by Avian Carrier; not instantaneous by any means, but tremendous throughput can be achieved (latency remains high, however). Waitzman's work on the matter was, as you might be aware, seminal: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149 Good luck. > Stefan > > -- "I always say to people, ‘No one earns $100 million. You steal $100 million.’ People earn $10 an hour. People earn $40,000 a year. ‘Earn’ means work. Okay? It doesn’t mean steal, which with these vast amounts of money, of course you steal them." — Fran Lebowitz
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 15:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scdAS-2Rr-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171550 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
There is a trade off between decentralization & reliability. Traditional E-Mail that people are talking about is NOT TRULY decentral. For instance think about how E-Mail work: 1- Mail Client Query MX record from DNS 2- Connect to SMTP Server and Exchange E-Mail. 3- SMTP figure out the sender IP and look domain of E-Mail 3- SMTP server query SRV Record of that domain and check is that IP valid. 4- (Nowadays) SMTP query DKIM (Which is TXT record) and validate also. So think how BITMESSAGE <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitmessage&oldid=734000991>: 1- The massage ONLY can access in TWO DAYS! 2- All Nodes have ALL E-Mail in Cryptic Form. About you last sentence: It's better that your message Not arrive instead of being disclose! and This is the philosophy behind True P2P IM systems. Regards On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: > > You can't have all the best together. > > What does that mean, exactly? Are you saying it doesn't have reliable > message delivery? If so, that'd be a deal breaker for me. > > > Stefan "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an > unreliable messaging system" > > > > This mention in previous E-Mails as well. E.g: > <20160817192400.GB9964@alum> > > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Stefan Monnier < > monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> > > wrote: > > >> > I think you looking for TOX! > >> > Visit TOX Project website: > >> > https://tox.chat > >> > >> Thanks. That does look promising (although I don't see any mention of > >> reliable delivery), > >> > >> > >> Stefan > >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Stefan Monnier < > >> monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> > >> > wrote: > >> > >> >> I'm looking for a decentralized instant message system (e.g. XMPP, > SIP, > >> >> ...) where I can be sure that I receive all messages, even if I'm not > >> >> connected when the message is sent [ Obviously, I'll only receive > them > >> >> when I'm back online. ] > >> >> > >> >> IIUC there is some XMPP features that allow such reliable delivery, > but > >> >> it seems that it's not widely supported by clients. What Debian > >> >> clients, using which protocols, can provide reliable instant > messaging? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Stefan > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> PS: Bonus points if that feature is also available on an Android > >> >> application that's Free Software. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 15:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sce3U-31q-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171608 |
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 01:14:08PM +0000, Amir H. Firouzian wrote: > [...] > About you last sentence: > It's better that your message Not arrive instead of being disclose! and > This is the philosophy behind True P2P IM systems. Getting offtopic here. However, please elaborate why this is better? Is there some fundamental law behind your rational? -H -- Henning Follmann | hfollmann@itcfollmann.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Amir H. Firouzian" <firouziyan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 20:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scihb-5N2-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171611 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
It's not my point of view, It's P2P philosophy. if you consider the project that try to collect Internet Informations; This philosophy seems to be rational. On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com > wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 01:14:08PM +0000, Amir H. Firouzian wrote: > > > [...] > > > > About you last sentence: > > It's better that your message Not arrive instead of being disclose! and > > This is the philosophy behind True P2P IM systems. > > Getting offtopic here. However, please elaborate why this is better? > Is there some fundamental law behind your rational? > > -H > > -- > Henning Follmann | hfollmann@itcfollmann.com > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Henning Follmann <hfollmann@itcfollmann.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 18:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <scD2i-4er-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #171643 |
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 06:12:36PM +0000, Amir H. Firouzian wrote: > It's not my point of view, It's P2P philosophy. LOL, you really crack me up. P2P philosophy? Seriously? Is that taught at some university? Can you have a P2PhD there? > if you consider the project that try to collect Internet Informations; This > philosophy seems to be rational. And this sentence doesn't even make sense. What project? And if there is a "project" how does the existence automatically imply that it is the highest priority to prevent this from happening > PS.: Please don't top post. Especially not if someone already posted an answer below. -H -- Henning Follmann | hfollmann@itcfollmann.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web