| 1 |
On 8/18/20 1:00 AM, Caveman Al Toraboran wrote: |
| 2 |
> not specifically with a mail provider, but with other i.t. services, |
| 3 |
> yes. and since they're all humans, then the simplest model that |
| 4 |
> explains this is that this is about humans in general, and same past |
| 5 |
> experience would extend to mail provider's admins. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
To each their own. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> yes. smtp is nasty, and also redundant. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I disagree. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Simple Mail Transfer /Protocol/, as in the application layer language |
| 14 |
spoken between mail servers is fairly elegant. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
What is done on top of that and with the data that goes back and forth |
| 17 |
is far more iffy. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I also disagree that SMTP is redundant. I'm not aware of anything else |
| 20 |
nearly as ubiquitous as SMTP for getting messages between systems in a |
| 21 |
fault tolerant manner. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> makes me wonder if i should just create me a hidden tor service that |
| 24 |
> is just a normal website, and give its url to people (instead of email) |
| 25 |
> who want to message me by telling them ``submit your messages to me''. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
So you want to change from a ubiquitous protocol that is supported by |
| 28 |
many Many MANY devices to niche protocol that has a non-trivial |
| 29 |
installation / configuration curve. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> then, verify messages by mailing their supplied email a confirmation |
| 32 |
> message. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
And then you want to take what people send you, turn around and send |
| 35 |
unsolicited messages based on it — this is the icing on the cake — using |
| 36 |
the protocol that you are trying to avoid. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
It's only a matter of time before someone uses your Tor hidden service |
| 39 |
as a vector to send spam. — Joe Job comes to mind. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
Grant. . . . |
| 45 |
unix || die |
Archives