Re: Messed up Email
On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 19:04:57 +0100
Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu 24 Jun 2021 at 18:41:56 -0400, Celejar wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> It's described in the same document dealing also with Yahoo, gmx and
> Zoho :). I expect they have read and taken notice of the RFCs.
>
> > > 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.
>
> I wouldn't want to generalise to that extent. However, your mail made
> it to LDO and was then delivered to me. Gmail must be doing something
> right and standards-based.
>
> > > standrds-bsaed != free.
No one's denying that Gmail *mostly* follows email standards; the
criticism is that they sometimes deviate from these standards, in
undocumented and often frustrating ways. This may not affect your
use case; that does not mean that it isn't frustrating to others.
> > That's true, of course.
>
> It is perfectly possible to send and receive mail via gmail without
> ever encountering its web interface. That's no different from any
> other ISP.
Yes, I access Gmail almost exclusively via POP3 and IMAP. And the
clients I use have special workarounds and warnings for Gmail:
https://getmail6.org/faq.html#faq-notabug-gmail-bug
https://www.ubuntubuzz.com/2017/06/how-to-setup-sylpheed-for-gmail-imap-client.html
Celejar
Reply to: