Within months of Google announcing Reader's closing, Feedly had acquired something like 8 million new users. Amazing stroke of fortune for a well-deserving product. I still happily use the free version.
And 1) I don’t understand. Feedly was one of the first ones I tried, and none of the settings I tried got me close to a headline-only view that I used in GReader. I used Newsblur for a while and am on TT-RSS nowadays. But Feedly always seemed to cater more to those people who enjoy image-heavy subreddits and full-page hero images, or pinterest.
Nothing I tried with Feedly got me a simple, no distraction one-line, click to expand downwards view.
Note that all of this was around when GReader closed, no idea what changed.
edit: Just decided to log in and check ;) So what I didn’t like was the way it popped up from the side instead of actually doing what GReader (and TT-RSS and Newsblur) can do: Simply popping down the current article, and not switching the view.
I am pretty sure that I tried Feedly in the post-"Oh no, Google Reader is going away!" panic everyone else using the service was in at the time, and like you I could not replicate the feel. The Old Reader was the closest alternative I found among the several I tried, but soon afterwards Inoreader appeared with a very, very, very close-to-Google Reader feel, and I've been extremely happy on it ever since. (If only Inoreader would correctly open the comment link and not the original article in the HN RSS feed.)
(not affiliated, just a v happy user)
I'm pretty sure that's down to HN themselves choosing to put the original article's URL into each entry's "link" field
To be honest, however, I was disappointed with the recent price increases and other changes. I have a grandfathered Pro account that I'm paying $18/year for until 2021 (with a 40% off coupon). Then my options will be to either pay $50/year for a much more limited service (only 30 rules instead of unlimited, only 30 filtered feeds instead of unlimited), or reject the price increase and go back to a "supporter" account, which doesn't have any perks and costs $20/year, more than I'm paying now for Pro.
How much buzz can you get when everyone’s first thought is “how could this be any good? Google already tried that and failed...”
... which licenses its content with CC by SA 4.0 and has a public API.
Other licensing models of content will vary.
At least in the U.S., I don't think it's that relevant to the use-cases I've seen. IANAL, but in the 4-factor fair use test a place like Internet Archive rehosting the content to me easily clears 3 of them if the original host goes away.
So, it became a useless site because there were no teeth to the rules.
This is the source of the HUEHUEHUE meme https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/huahuehuahue . There's even an academic study on the Brazilian online cultural traits that cause such problems in Orkut! https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265844216_'HUEHUEHU...
GTalk was really in a position to be the #1 messenger.
For google it's just a distraction that needs to be culled.
For eg. Allo was considered a failure because it had 'only' 10 million DAU in first 8 months.
For a startup that would be like hitting a jackpot.
While it may not make sense at Google Scale, it can absolutely make sense for a small business spinoff.
Just one of many ways that Service as a Software Substitute reduces user freedom.
Spotify's been running strong for like 13 years, GPM is about to turn 10, etc. None of those people have been bitten yet, and there's literally hundreds of millions of them.
Stadia has all the user data on the backend, _and_ is expensive to run since all the processing happens on their end too.
Now compare that to stadia which'll probably be dedicating high CPU and GPU to each logged in user, in addition to the low latency video compression hardware they're pretty much guaranteed to have?
They say they won't until YouTube music has feature parity but I don't believe it.
I may sound bitter ...
Well, sort of. But relevant to the original question posed: are users of GPM losing their suscribed content? No.
That's beside the point, though—my reply, it's parent and it's grandparent were discussing Google products generally, not Stadia specifically.
 I realize that Takeout doesn't support Stadia. Though, for two different Stadia titles (Destiny 2's "cross-play" and NBA2K20's "MyPlayer"), I was prompted to log into a publisher account where my data could be linked/stored or something.
Legally or ethically?
Edit: Steam will let you _import_ a CD key, but that's the closest I can think of, and there's no way to export once it's in steam.
At least the current Chromebooks let you print on a networked printer.
* Founds telephony company Dialpad, sells to Yahoo. (I think it was the basis of Yahoo's search-via-phone-call service.)
* Founds telephony company Grand Central, sells to Google, is basis of Google Voice.
* Founds telephony company Dialpad (he bought back the name and domain).
1. It was Yahoo (del.icio.us) not Google and
2. I think he didn't start until at a later stage.
(I'm an happy early user of pinboard.in)
Stadia is different, with this product Google is trying something really innovative. For one, the fact that Stadia actually costs money should be a signal of Google's long term ambition here. Yes, Fiber also cost money but was bogged down by the hell that is infrastructure development.
Stadia will require a substantial engineering effort from Google to make this work. The latency and network requirements are a great test to gauge network requirements as we move into 5g, AR, and self driving cars.
Gaming is huge and if Google can be the first to provide (viable) steaming as a service they can really threaten some of the incumbents like Twitch, Sony, Microsoft, etc.
Obviously Google doesn't have the best track record here but I'm excited to see them tackle this challenge.
The problem with Stadia is that it costs money, the service costs a monthly fee, and on top of it you have to buy the games. What happens to those games if you stop paying the fee? If you stop using Stadia? If Google deprecates Stadia like many are worried. I'll tell you: you lose the game.
If I, conversely, buy the same $60 game on Steam, I know it'll be there years down the road, that I'll be able to play it on any PC I build, and I don't have to maintain a monthly fee for it.
What Google is trying has been tried many times before, by people who had more permissive game ownership structures.
Do not tell us we shouldn't be worried about using such a product from Google given their track record -- especially when the costs to them are enormous in terms of computing power and the reception has been very tepid (meaning those costs are larger per-user than they likely anticipated).
WHAT? I've been under a rock and I assumed that it was a service where you buy a controller, already own a streaming device (or maybe the controller has the device in it), and pay monthly for the whole service. You have to buy the games too?
That is an immediate about-face for me. If they shut down the service then I just stop paying the monthly fee. This is perfectly comfortable for any service. But if I have to buy-in to every game...
So yeah, if they discontinue Stadia it is an open question what happens to the games you purchased on it. They have avoided questions on it, unsurprisingly.
Unless I am misunderstanding, the 4k up-res is happening on Google's side, so it's not like they are skimping on bandwidth.
I suspect they didn't have enough clout with development studios to create that pricing structure.
As an example, Assassin's Creed: Odyssey is $59.99 on Stadia ($39.99 with subscription for 4K). On Steam it's currently $59.99 too, but at 4K without the extra subscription.
Game distribution is a hyper-competitive market right now, with Epic Games in particular giving away high quality games for free every week on their Steam competitor and paying developers up front to get timed exclusives.
I think Google's going to have to re-visit its pricing and customer acquisition model on this one.
But with a requirement for a $400-$1300 graphics card, depending on the FPS and quality you want. And no hope of running it at 4K on most laptops.
Most laptops also don't have 4K screens, so it's a moot point.
I'm not saying their Games strategy will mirror the one taken for Movies, but I'd advice waiting to see what will happen.
I'd expect after a few years of game streaming competition someone will try to undercut the market with a Netflix model.
The stadia controller doesn’t have motion controls.
Those games are useless, who’ll pay $60 for them?
(the subscription is optional, gives you discounts and free games, so it might be a good deal for some people)
Games With Gold are actually free. You need the Gold membership to get them, but you can unsubscribe - they're yours.
Edit: You may be thinking of Game Pass, which behaves in the way you describe.
Who precisely is this concept even marketable to? People with high speed internet, that also can't afford a gaming console?
But can afford a device capable of handling all of the inputs & playback of the video.
So lets low ball and say a $140 chromebook.
+ the cost of the games.
How many people is this? Genuinely.
A second point, sometimes i play coop games with my wife. Its nice not needing 2 consoles or gaming pc's. One can play on the TV and the other on a tablet or cheap laptop.
I game on PC, my kids use PC and consoles, and I can't say that "downloading/installing games" is a significant time sink - and if your network isn't good, Stadia isn't going to work either.
The other thing that I think will break the Stadia business model is that the free access costs Google money unless it recoups the spending on the games. So while we're hearing about reasonably competitive Day 1 prices for games, will we see the pattern of discounting that all other games go through? Second-hand console games?
It just feels like it's aiming at a niche while building out a huge system that's only going to be viable if it achieves mass adoption.
For example, say you want to play a particular new game but don't have the hardware for it. Stadia could be a good option to quickly get to play without having to buy new hardware.
Say I have a decent PC for most days and small games, but I'd like to try the new Forza Horizon because it looks fun. I could very well get it on Stadia. I'm not worried about losing access in 10 years, it's just to have some fun for a few months.
Actually for games with pretty high requirements such as the future Microsoft Flight Simulator, streaming could be the best option for most people.
Unless you have (particularly good) fiber, this probably won't happen. The bandwidth requirements are too high.
> No wasting time downloading/installing games. No patches. Just games ready to play.
FWIW, all of the current generation consoles (even the Switch) have a standby mode that will let them patch your games while you're not playing, meaning that in most cases when you go to play, you can immediately play. They'll even download pre-ordered games without your input.
The only time you would need to be concerned about download times is when you're purchasing a new game for the first time. That's typically a one-time event per game.
On my Xbox I often don't get around to pre-ordering games and there is limited disk space so if I want to play a old game I have to wait again.
And, if I'm a little bit snarky, you can't exactly play those old games on Stadia either.
Maybe there isn't enough high speed internet deployed in the world, but there certainly are a lot of devices capable of streaming given how many people already have an Android or iOS device on them at all times. Both of which support Bluetooth and most modern game controllers. Some of which have better screens than most people have at home. Some of which have better specs than, as just one interesting example, Nintendo's Switch.
For example, a gamer playing on PC and/or XBox might want to play Horizon Zero Dawn for some time, but not buy a PS4 just for one game. Or some Nintendo exclusive game.
Most people don't have all gaming consoles available, and exclusives are (IMHO sadly) a thing, and this might be a reasonable workaround to provide compatibility.
Of course its not available for Mac (yet).
And existing consoles require you to:
* pay a large upfront fee for the hardware
* purchase games at full price
* buy a recurring subscription service for access to updates and essentials, like multiplayer.
Stadia doesn't seem unreasonable at all by comparison.
The game purchase story is identical.
The multiplayer subscription is approximately another ~$4 a month, and includes an average of two new, free, games per month. It's also not required outside of multiplayer.
So, the deal is virtually identical to (or better than) Stadia, but with much more stability in poor internet zones, and the chances of Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo turning off their entire ecosystem are much lower than Google's (they have a positive track record spanning decades on this topic).
You can look at the cost another way: Buying a console is like buying a 5-year pre-paid plan for a subscription service. That puts it in clearer terms, to me.
Anyhow, once Stadia's free version is released, unless its drastically limited in someway, it will be cheaper than everything. Honestly, I don't know why they didn't advertise as a primarily free service. People think of it as a paid service first, that has a crappy free tier, rather than a free service that has a value-add pro tier.
I do agree that if it reaches the point where Stadia allows you to effectively rent a $3k - $4k high end gaming PC for just $10/month, it will become an interesting proposition.
While this is true now, you'll later be able to play games by only paying a monthly fee or only buying the game for the normal <=$60 price. The subscription isn't necessary to play games at all.
The problem you have with the service potentially going away also applies to Steam, to a lesser degree. I acknowledge that they have a proven track record now and also require much less to continue serving games though.
But having a pricier option where you can save your content offline would be a way to satisfy both audiences.
Although in this case, I personally think a pure subscription model should replace the fee + pay-per-game model as the basic streaming option.
There is certainly room to be concerned with what happens to purchases if Google eventually pulls the plug on the whole service.
I think Google is betting that cloud steaming is now viable and are going to put as much resources as possible to make it work.
I am not doubting that there are issues with the product and concerns about Google, I obviously have reservations but don't believe that it hinders me from being excited about the prospect itself
What it's basically saying is "this failed until it succeeded", because the alternative option, that of being able to accurately predict the exact point the technology is 'good enough', has proven effectively impossible to do (given how so many companies that manage it occasionally also fail at it most of the time; it's a crapshoot).
To that end, given Stadia is here, does anyone think the tech is ready? No. In fact, people seem to think the opposite, that Stadia is Google's attempt to get the tech to a specific point, or to offset the cost of the tech serving another use case.
The only way Stadia has a shot is if Google stays viewing it as a way to profit from having unused GPUs sitting around within its cloud offerings.
I love new technology and gadgets. I bought an Oculus DK2 and Vive and they were both mind blowing when I first tried them, although I don’t still use them. Trying Google Glass, on the other hand, was beyond underwhelming. Holo Lens and Magic Leap, while slightly better, were also extremely underwhelming. Other than niche industrial applications, these products are far far too early for any consumer product.
Genuine question: What is innovative here? There are at least a dozen attempts at 'cloud gaming' that I'm aware of dating back about a decade.
The games were not re-engineered / ported specifically to run 'in the cloud' as Stadia is attempting. There are some interesting things that could allow, if a developer ever decides to utilize it.
You pay the one-off cost to buy the console, you then maybe pay for the Pro subscription, but you have to buy your games and those games are locked to that platform - just like with PS/Xbox.
All the other stuff about having games that deliver something unseen before because of "the cloud" are mostly promises and theoretical features at this stage, so I wouldn't bank too much on that.
That's not innovation, it's just having a bigger stick than the other guy.
I'm just one datapoint, I know, but that's also just a keynote.
Cloud gaming needs even lower latency. I don't think it's possible, but if google is doing the serious datacenter work, it must be a testbed for something else, because gaming isn't worth it anyway.
> By 2018, the United States video game industry had matched that of the Unites States film industry on basis of revenue, with both industries having made around US$43 billion that year.
This kind of thing has been around for nearly 10 years.
My regular gaming setup is a 144 Hz monitor with a PC. Everytime I try gaming on a console with a 60 Hz TV I feel like I'm completely drunk because of the noticeable input lag. And that's not even cloud gaming. That's just the Console + TV input lag...
Plus your suggestion can be implemented with cloud compute (a backend behind the UI) - it doesn't need to be cloud streaming.
Microsoft (xCloud). Free until it’s stable.
Nvidia (GeForce NOW). Free until it’s stable.
Sony (PlayStation Now).
.. Seriously dude where’ve you been?
What is important in case of Shadow, GeForce Now and roll you own, that you buy a PC game that you can access on any PC, not just using a single service (like Stadia, or xCloud).
>The OnLive Game Service was launched in the United States on June 17, 2010. The service was launched in the United Kingdom on September 22, 2011.
"PlayStation Now (PS Now) is a cloud gaming subscription service developed by Sony Interactive Entertainment."
Apparently, Microsoft is simply going to rack-mount XBox hardware and stream it that way, which means the entire XBox library is instantly compatible.
For Stadia, games have to be modified specifically for it and their Linux configuration, which limits what games are announced for the platform, and requires engineering effort.
Streaming live and streaming offline media require very different infrastructure.
Google is not the one being innovative here. This has been done before, to no real success. Google was first to the finish line (kinda, seems more like a beta in implementation), but other offerings are coming down the pipe shortly.
I don't see Google winning this one. MS is in a much better position here, and NVidia also has one in the works.
I would short Google on this in an instant if someone would take my money.
I'm sure there are many people who would be happy to take your money to bet against Google.
As-is, Google just happens to be first-to-market in the current generation of on-demand game streaming options. But we've seen this technology before, and I could get the same results with a high quality VPN set-up to connect to a Xbox at home.
There are videos on YouTube of people using Xbox game streaming, but it requires setting up a VPN at home which presumably few people do.
Edit: with the Stadia launch, I'm currently working on setting up a Raspberry PI as a VPN server to try this myself.
But then they come out with some hosted older games. Eh. Maybe the big reveal will come out eventually, but this far it's pretty disappointing.
How about I don't pay the monthly subscription/for the controller and tell Google that "payments improve. Mine will too"?
I'm obviously salty because I preordered Stadia (against my better judgement) and it's terrible.
The overall quality is very beta (black screen in Stadia unless you disable hardware acceleration, which I have to do every time, Stadia can't easily handle multiple Google accounts, I have to change accounts every single time).
Probably worst thing is very Google-like support. Super long queues for "Customer Care", phonelines are closed at 10:30 AM because they're "Out of hours".
Has been a product for a long time and actually works really well.
where do I sign up?
They make great free toys that mostly work and make a lot of money doing so. I'm glad to use those toys for free, but I'm under no allusions that what often works will always work. That's not their forte.
BTW Twitch is a different kind of game streaming.
The innovation is not necessarily in the product but in the engineering required to make the product feasible. There is a long history of tech that simply is too early for the current environment. Google is betting the cloud gaming has reached a point of viability and it's very exciting to see them tackle the challenge.
Obviously there are concerns with the products. Specifically paying for games, the games itself, etc. But generally I'm excited for this effort.
Yet their launch has been plauged by issues and latency is still a massive problem. They didn't crack the nut, so again, what's innovative here?
Nice Freudian slip there. We have a "smart" TV here that's never been connected to the Internet. They seem to just universally suck.
For extra credit, our TV is a Roku TV, and from the CEOs comments, I doubt I'll ever connect it to the Internet. At least until they start coming with 4G connectivity built-in...(!)
They certainly dont inspire trust in anything but their flagship brands like Gmail that have been with us for decades.
Sometimes companies are shitty but it doesn’t justify such a strong hammer. If anything their search products or mobile products would themselves need to be broken up, (or FBs network and Instagram) not the whole company... but even then it’s not like they will go away.
Here's an example from Apple:
Only Apple Maps can show you maps on a locked screen.
Until iOS 13 Siri tightly integrated with Apple Music ways no other app could.
Apple Pay is the only payment method that can work with a locked phone.
Only Apple's app store can install apps.
Only Apple's messaging apps can create new contacts.
All built-in apps only call other Apple apps for supporting functionality, for example Reminders will only open Apple Maps, Siri smart suggestions for ETA only work with Apple Maps as well.
All Apple apps get an immense head start of integrating with new APIs and OS features.
So if you create a competitor to one of those Apple apps, from day 1 you're at a disadvantage.
If they were broken up, all competitors would be on a much more even playing field with Apple's apps.
And Apple is just an easy example, Android is much more open than iOS, but Google Play Services is still a guillotine over anyone who dares to go against Google's wishes.
Imagine if Google services were separate companies so a claimed misdeed on one couldn't end what is the core of billions of people's online existence...
Perhaps, but the vast majority of the hate lands on those companies that are actively screwing over their users, so... I'm happy with vindictive against a billion dollar monolith that I have no hope of ever controlling.
Generally, just because someone may find a way around a law is not a justified reason for not having the law.
A break up usually means many of these people are laid off or move on. Every separate company would have its own books that would either need to be public if they remain public entities or have audited financials that match expenses to revenue and investments. Not an easy thing to hide QTR over QTR. Furthermore, depending on how the companies are broken up, they will be acquired by other companies or PE rather than be stand-alone enterprises. Lastly, whistleblowers.
It's not worth it for spite and any significant gains or advantages that are imagined, are probably significant enough to be noticed by the government or some enterprising analyst.
Preventing Products from failing should be SOP.
It's good to see that maintenance is rewarded at Google at least occasionally. I only ever hear that it is only new products that are rewarded. And I notice new people piling on to issues in their product trackers that I've been following for years.
Even Gmail is a giant blob of garbage.
Sadly from a UX point of view I can't disagree. Google inbox (and other products) showed how the UX for mail clients can be tremendously improved. But they shut it down and only migrated some of the more irrelevant features. IMHO the UX of gmail is so bad that I wonder if they want to phase out email altogether.
This doesn't even include some of the thing inbox (and maybe gmail, idk) supported wrt. metadata and live updates and now is discontinued "because it's no longer needed with dynamic amp pages". Just that amp kinda misses the whole point of email :( .
I really want to write my own client. But I know it's way to much work to get to the point where it's nice _and_ that is pointless if the people sending mails will stop including thinks like json-ld sections in mail. Really sad, as that had a lot more potential then the amp * they want to ship now.
They've replaced the hamburger menu in the upper left with a "back arrow", which does the same thing as the hamburger menu did, while making even less sense.
Somewhere in the last 10 years or so it feels like the gmail team switched from "Make a good email client" to "Shove all the enterprisey things into gmail!".
It's gotten SO slow to load and is incredibly bloated.
I was a happy inbox user until... drumroll... they shut that down too.
I still use Gmail because old habits die hard, but I won't ever suggest a google tool at work. Fool me once, shame on you...
Email has been around for decades. The fact that Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail, and many paid services have had one-click email addresses for twenty-plus years should demonstrate that it's not difficult. Businesses just don't want to make it easy for lay people to do it.
I would love it if "package-manager-thing install mail-server-thing" and "service-manager-thing start mail-server-thing" could get things going with sensible defaults like they do with nginx, even if you'd probably need to tweak things after they were going just like you're almost certainly going to do with a web server. But AFAIK, that just ain't the case.
Can you provide specific numbers to the count of people devoted to tackling spam, reputation, uptime, etc? I suspect the number's a lot smaller than you think. I also suspect the peoples' duties are less devoted than you think.
If Google, for example, truly worked to tackle spam then it wouldn't have a spam problem today. If Yahoo truly worked to tackle reputation, people wouldn't have trouble sending email using an email client instead of a browser.
I'll grant you that uptime does have dedicated people. But it's not to tackle spam or reputation. It's because offline services don't make a profit.
There are teams that actively (and solely) work on spam and abuse detection. They're larger than you seem to believe, though I won't give exact numbers. There's also obviously sre teams that maintain uptime. (Note I said teams, and there's a public approximate minimum size for an are team at Google of 8-12 people)
The problem is that spam can't be "solved". Reputation is easy to solve: only accept email from a known list of good senders. Gmail, Yahoo, MailChimp (or not), etc. But that makes people on HN complain. So your have to try and infer reputation of mailservers on shared hosts. And spammers are always trying to beat you, and there are thousands, maybe tens of thousands of spam outfits. Af they're sneaky. They try to use awa or gcp to send email, or even send spam from Gmail, prevent trickier things. So you're left to defend from a spam campaign from Yahoo while also trying to not block everyone at Yahoo, and detect the spammers who are using Gmail to spam Yahoo too.
And the spammers are always innovating, so you have to as well.
My personal belief is that Google likely considers spam detection to be an area of competitive advantage so investments are warranted.
Spam absolutely can be solved.
1) enforce identity. If the sender isn't authentic, then the sender is spam.
2) enforce reportability. If the user reports the sender as spam, then don't permit the sender to send more messages to the person who complained. if a lot of people report the problem, then block the sender.
3) enforce liability. if an ISP hosts spammers, then block the ISP.
If someone complains then walk them through the process. Just like people shouldn't drive vehicles without understanding that vehicles are dangerous, the same should be done with computers.
Everything Joshua Morton said but also:
What is identity? A name? An SSN? How do you verify that for people in all the countries of the world?
How do you do that at scale? With hundreds of millions of users, you can't exactly call them up.
How many users are you going to have after you start adding measures to verify their identities at signup? How will the board of directors feel about that? And feel free to run your own company into the ground doing the right thing, but there are other email providers in the world who will happily accept the users you drive away.
What happens when people have their accounts taken over and start spamming? Were the accounts ever "real"? How can you even know?
What happens when the reports themselves are spam? Spammers will report other spammers to remove the competition. Or they'll just overwhelm it with useless fake reports to DOS your human reviewers.
You have to realize that every input to your system is a potential avenue for abuse. There are people sitting there all day thinking about how to prevent you from achieving your goals. Humanity went to the moon, we're problem solvers. If there's a way to manipulate and undermine your spam defenses it will be found.
What's your definition of authentic? Is a self-hosted email server authentic? How do you decide?
> If the user reports the sender as spam, then don't permit the sender to send more messages to the person who complained.
If 10000 yahoo accounts are sending spam emails to other websites, what do you do? Block all yahoo senders? Try to block the yahoo accounts as they appear?
> 3) enforce liability. if an ISP hosts spammers, then block the ISP.
All major ISPs host spammers. Often they don't know that they do. Is it worth cutting off all comcast users nationwide from being able to use email? If anything, this would further centralize on one or two trustworthy email hosts, because those providers are essentially their own ISPs.
Authentic in terms of DNS. That means using and enforcing DKIM at the minimum.
Also in terms of from: and reply-to: addresses matching each other.
> If 10000 yahoo accounts are sending spam emails to other websites, what do you do? Block all yahoo senders? Try to block the yahoo accounts as they appear?
If 10000 yahoo accounts are sending spam emails, then that's a Yahoo problem. Yes, I would refuse to accept incoming mail from @yahoo.com until they've fixed their complicity.
> All major ISPs host spammers. Often they don't know that they do.
I disagree about not knowing that they do. ISPs must respond to fraud and abuse reports or they would lose the ability to do business. ISPs not responding to spam reports are offloading the cost of policing their users onto you.
Sure, these are basic things that are generally used as strong signals, but all this does is filter out the incompetent spammers. If you're sending from yahoo or from gmail, you've already solved the reputation problem. And there are other ways of doing the same.
> If 10000 yahoo accounts are sending spam emails, then that's a Yahoo problem. Yes, I would refuse to accept incoming mail from @yahoo.com until they've fixed their complicity.
I'd expect that this is approximately the baseline number of yahoo accounts sending spam when they aren't being actively targeted. Its less than 1% of 1% of the active monthly accounts on yahoo. So you'd like to just block yahoo constantly?
> I disagree about not knowing that they do.
Sure they know, in the sense that I also know that there are always people spamming from every major ISP. That doesn't mean that they can immediately address things. And while you're busy blocking all comcast users from sending your users email, your users are busy moving to a different email provider that identifies individual spam senders so that they can still receive legitimate email.
In closing, a simple question: if solving spam is this straightforward, why hasn't an upstart competitor (yahoo, protonmail, etc.) taken advantage of this strategy to fix the spam problem? It appears you're presuming a centralized system, which defeats the point of email and significantly simplifies the problem.
If my mail server is banning mail from Yahoo, I can't communicate with my grandparents and I stop using that mail server. Enough people do that and the mail server has no users.
inetknght, I get the sense that you run a mail server of your own. Have you taken your own advice here and blocked @yahoo.com incoming? Is it inconvenient? Is it more inconvenient than the two-step process of setting up a Gmail account?
Why are your grandparents using Yahoo instead of your mail server?
> Have you taken your own advice here and blocked @yahoo.com incoming? Is it inconvenient? Is it more inconvenient than the two-step process of setting up a Gmail account?
I haven't had any correspondence from anyone who uses @yahoo.com. Or, if I have, they haven't complained about me not receiving their email. Or, if they have, their complaint was also not received in which case it doesn't exactly matter. If it did matter then I would address it then. And, importantly, it also means there's another (less noisy) communication medium available already.
Because internet systems are one part technology and one part social. My grandparents already have Yahoo accounts and are unwilling to change that.
And if your solution to interoperating with Yahoo servers is "I don't have anyone to talk to using Yahoo servers," then I'm afraid it sounds like you're trying to solve a problem other than the one email is designed to solve.
... and even for that, I had to disable / re-enable the firewall and fish around in the docs just last night to get the dang thing to accept connections from a source other than localhost (PROTIP: when running on a pretty-out-of-the-box Windows 10 config, the default options bind listeners to IPv6, not IPv4). And I definitely wouldn't recommend that configuration for production; you'll open yourself up to a universe of pain.
But as an analogy for setting up an email server vs. just subscribing to Google or whoever, I accept it. ;)
Ironically, it is the technical problem of verification that makes it difficult to run (not setup) a mailserver: no one wants to trust it.
Such technologies have to be done behind the scenes and presented seamlessly, or they will probably never take off.
Tell me more about how DKIM and SPF and TLS with client certificates don't verify senders.
P.S.: However, come to think of it, they don't. You can receive a perfectly legit and verified email from email@example.com with the name displayed as "Mr. Your CEO".
It sure is when they don't even bother to show the From address, there's no way to make links unclickable as an email administrator.
At this point, between Microsoft and Google ruining it in different ways, email has very little hope as a medium.