

The future of email: From smtp to xmpp - rabble
http://anarchogeek.com/2008/6/20/the-future-of-email-from-smtp-to-xmpp

======
rabble
Sorry about the double post, i wrote the article and posted it, but somebody
else had already put it up. Woops. I wrote the post, went to sleep, and
submitted in the morning. I read the site, but not while i sleep.

~~~
sant0sk1
"I read the site, but not while i sleep."

We really need to work on your REM productivity... :P

------
kogir
Perhaps I'm missing it, but what does changing the delivery protocol buy you?
XMPP does little to nothing more than email in terms of sender verification.
SPAM would continue unabated.

~~~
bct
> XMPP does little to nothing more than email in terms of sender verification.

SMTP doesn't do any verification at all, does it? XMPP uses SSL if possible
and otherwise does a dialback so you can at least be sure the message was sent
from the server it claims to be from.

The other aspect is that XMPP is young enough that it can still change to do
more (since there are only a handful of clients and servers, as compared to
SMTP). As far as I can tell, SMTP is completely stagnant and any improvements
that can't be made unilaterally won't happen. (I'm not very familiar with
SMTP, I'd love to be proven wrong.)

~~~
wmf
SPF allows some verification of mail servers and some antispam systems will do
an SMTP callback to verify that the sender address is a valid address.

~~~
bct
How widely are those deployed? Can you get away with ignoring submissions from
servers that don't have them set up?

~~~
dfranke
No, not even close. SPF is not a spam prevention measure. It's just a way of
protecting innocent senders from being impersonated by spammers. DKIM does a
better job at the same purpose.

------
jrockway
Wasn't this posted yesterday?

EDIT: Yes. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=222424>

If you don't read this site, why submit to it?

