While I agree with much of what you're saying, making a public service that's not the equivalent of an open relay is hard. Google has a lot of code assigned at detecting abuse, and a lot of this works because of the scale of their operation.
I think public servers are possible, but not as they are now. We are naive if we allow ourselves to think that traditional IBR is a realistic option. On Sep 4, 2012 9:58 PM, "Peter Viskup" <skupko...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 09/04/2012 09:21 PM, Philipp Hancke wrote: > >> Going further, I think that public servers are an obsolete concept. >> >> In the early days of Jabber, when was really hard to install an XMPP >> server they had their place. And they were usually run by developers >> gathering operational experience. >> >> These days, when people need an xmpp account and don't want to run their >> own server they go to google (google hosts ~18% of xmpp domains, I would >> bet that their market share is more than 35% when looking at the number of >> (non-enterprise im) accounts). >> > > There are people who doesn't use google's services (hopefully) and it is > always good to have possibility to choose. There will be always people who > will not have their own domain/servers just because they do/will not need > it. > Anyway freedom, openness and possibility to choose should be the > principles which should have precedence before anything in real and also in > this our virtual world. And this is reason why public servers will never be > an 'obsolete concept' as they never been an 'open relay'. > There are some tries to centralize and control server's access to XMPP > network and I am not sure if that is good way. There are always 'bad users' > in every community and we have to learn to live with them. Anyway it's > great chance to come with XMPP improvements and help XMPPSF to improve this > protocol/network. > Hope that at some time we will have (at least partially) autonomous XMPP > network. > > -- > Peter Viskup >
