Re: Messed up Email
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 21:03:28 +0100
Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu 24 Jun 2021 at 14:04:13 -0400, Celejar wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 01:25:37 +0300
> > Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mi, 23 iun 21, 17:12:07, Michael Grant wrote:
> > > > > Apparently the lines are blurry enough for you to include Signal in that
> > > > > list.
> > > >
> > > > Why? Not blurry at all. Signal is just as closed a system as
> > > > WhatsApp. Maybe more private, but unless you know something I don't,
> > > > Signal doesn't talk to anything other than other Signal. Puppeted
> > > > bridges are not interoperability, as far as I am aware, all users
> > > > still need to be on Signal.
> > >
> > > You seem to be using a completely different meaning of 'proprietary' (no
> > > federation) than I do (closed source software, proprietary protocol that
> > > must be reversed engineered, patents, etc.).
> >
> > Well, Michael's original post that you challenged contrasted:
> >
> > > a standards based system such as mail or the web and a proprietary
> > > system such as facebook, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, etc etc.
> >
> > Would you call Signal "a standards based system?" I understand that the
> > software itself is open source, and the project does publish various
> > "Signal Protocal" libraries, but I'm not sure that's quite enough to
> > call it "standards based."
>
> Michael was desperately trying to sustain his argument that
>
> > email is NOT gmail and let's not forget this.
>
> Gmail is standards-based. I expext Signal is too; otherwise it would not
Is there a published, readily available, complete description of Gmail's
behavior?
> work.
? Are you asserting that any software that works is necessarily
standards-based? If so, you must have a very different definition of
standards-based from mine.
> standrds-bsaed != free.
That's true, of course.
Celejar
Reply to: