Re: Messed up Email
On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 13:14:37 +0300
Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jo, 24 iun 21, 14:04:13, 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."
>
> In the strict definition that would imply there is an RFC or so for the
> Signal Protocol. Still the protocol is published and open for anyone to
> re-implement[1].
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Protocol
>
> How is that proprietary?
I'm not arguing that it's proprietary, but that it's not "standards
based." I agree that the one is not the negation of the other.
> The trouble with actually making something a standard is that if later
> it turns out something is a really bad idea it is basically impossible
> to remove, because now it's part of the standard, and several
> implementations have come to rely on that.
Fair - but standards have advantages, as well. We can debate whether
Signal is better off not using a real standard, but my point remains
that it's somewhat dubious to call Signal "standards based."
> [1] several other apps claim to have implemented the Signal Protocol.
Celejar
Reply to: