Re: Messed up Email
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Jo, 24 iun 21, 14:13:42, Dan Ritter wrote:
> >
> > At the other end is anything where you can't use a client or a
> > server that isn't produced/managed by the central authority.
> > Despite Signal making some of their source available, you can't
> > write your own Signal client and have it talk to their official
> > servers.
>
> Sure, and I don't remember disputing this.
>
> But let's not conflate the Signal software (client, server, etc.), the
> Signal protocol and the Signal *service*.
>
> Could you elaborate on why in your opinion an entity providing a service
> should automatically accept connections from third-party clients and/or
> federate with other service providers?
>
> https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issuecomment-217231557
>
> (as is implied from that, Signal did at some point federate)
Sure. In my opinion, a communication service that does not
federate with open-source clients and servers is a proprietary
service, even if it is free-gratis to use. The owner of that
service can do whatever they want, and nothing short of
government regulation can or will prevent them.
Monopolies are always bad; it's just that sometimes they are economically
worth having when very tightly regulated.
That's an opinion.
> Or could you explain why Matrix (which as far as I know is already both
> federated and open to any client) is not enough?
Not enough for what? The primary issue I have with Matrix is that
there's too much concentration of servers under the control of
matrix.org - but I think that they believe that too, and that
this will be rectified over the next few years.
-dsr-
Reply to: