| 1 |
On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 9:57 PM, Ashley Dixon <ash@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Why the name "HillaryMail", and why does the logo contain a picture of Margaret |
| 4 |
> Thatcher? ;-) |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
very true (re: thatcher). now i cannot unsee the |
| 7 |
thatcher in the pixel art. i have 2 options: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
(1) rename protocol into thatchermail. |
| 10 |
(2) find another pixel art that's actually for |
| 11 |
hillary. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
i got the thatcher pixel art from a site that |
| 14 |
claimed it's hillary [1]. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
as for the name "hillarymail", nothing against |
| 17 |
her. it's just that i heard so much about |
| 18 |
hillary's mails up to a point all mails started to |
| 19 |
feel as if they belong to her. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
i also named my passwords manager after nsa [2] |
| 22 |
for a similar reason (even though i find nsa to be |
| 23 |
much more trustworthy than my neighbours). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> More seriously, do you intend to write a reference implementation, or submit |
| 27 |
> this as a more formal R.F.C. in the event of it attracting more attention? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
i intend to eventually write a reference |
| 30 |
implementation either way (hopefully). specially |
| 31 |
that this seems to me very easy to implement, yet |
| 32 |
it seems also powerful. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
not sure what "formal r.f.c." means. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
(a) if it means a less ambiguous description, |
| 37 |
then "yes, but at a natural pace based on |
| 38 |
demand" (in the spirit of occam's razor). |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
(b) if it means an r.f.c. submitted to |
| 41 |
isoc/ietf, then "no". i think we should |
| 42 |
ignore standard bodies for awhile since they |
| 43 |
seem to be ignoring us. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
> Furthermore, accusing every SMTP/POP/IMAP user to be an "idiot" may not be the |
| 47 |
> best way of attaining support; I must admit, I have never seen that in an |
| 48 |
> initial protocol proposal. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
imo that's a parsing error on your side. to me |
| 51 |
"idiot" didn't refer to smtp/pop/imap users. it |
| 52 |
rather referred to those those who can't use |
| 53 |
address books or bitcoin. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
either way i've just replaced "idiots" by |
| 56 |
"people". "idiot" wasn't justified either way. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
> I'm also slightly confused regarding the "goals" section. By "easy to |
| 60 |
> install/use", do you mean "easy" for the people implementing the protocol, or |
| 61 |
> the people making use of said implementations? "Traditional" SMTP mail clients |
| 62 |
> have always been pretty straight-forward for me, although the difficulty |
| 63 |
> involved in implementing an M.T.A. is another story. I find this point rather |
| 64 |
> equivocal. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
i mean easy for both, but subject to the |
| 67 |
constraints specified under "goals" and |
| 68 |
"non-goals". |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
e.g. if becoming easier would cause the protocol |
| 71 |
to end up needing to trust a sys admin, then |
| 72 |
that's not acceptable. |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
but if it is possible to make it easier while |
| 75 |
still satisfying the constraints |
| 76 |
(goals/non-goals), then that's a good step forward |
| 77 |
(perhaps draft one?). |
| 78 |
|
| 79 |
|
| 80 |
------ |
| 81 |
[1] http://pixelartmaker.com/art/dffec5c6b08b94e |
| 82 |
[2] https://github.com/al-caveman/nsapass |
| 83 |
note: trying to remove pexpect dependency as |
| 84 |
it sometimes causes indefinite waiting. so it |
| 85 |
is not ready for those who want a solid app |
| 86 |
yet. that said, i really like it so far. imo |
| 87 |
after removing "pexpect" it will be perfect. |
Archives