Re: GNU (was Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?)

On 9/8/16, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > > If GNU can get people into using GNU software without giving up its > core values, then it normally does. > E.g. there is absolutely no ban on offering GNU software for proprietary > OSes. > > The FSF does not force GNU programs to fully

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

Hellow Darac! Darac Marjal 께서 쓰시길, 《記事 全文 <20160908114300.k4ss4l63okr62...@darac.org.uk> 에서》: > [...snip long lines...] > This is where Debian differs from the "ideals" of the Free Software > Foundation. (...) So i prefer Debian to FSF, thanks! -- ^고맙습니다 _地平天成_

GNU (was Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?)

Hi, Darac Marjal wrote: > I'm surprised that Grub (A GNU program) deigns to load Windows :) If GNU can get people into using GNU software without giving up its core values, then it normally does. E.g. there is absolutely no ban on offering GNU software for proprietary OSes. The FSF does not

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:29:21AM -, Dan Purgert wrote: Ben Finney wrote: Byung-Hee HWANG writes: My meant is that 100% rules/policy is not easy to keep for FSF-like Free Software by the definition. [snip] Do you believe “keep 100% rules/policy” is necessary for a

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

Ben Finney wrote: > Byung-Hee HWANG writes: > >> My meant is that 100% rules/policy is not easy to keep for FSF-like >> Free Software by the definition. > [snip] > > Do you believe “keep 100% rules/policy” is necessary for a person using > free software? What does that mean?

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

Byung-Hee HWANG writes: > My meant is that 100% rules/policy is not easy to keep for FSF-like > Free Software by the definition. Your statement was that you did not think you could tell people to use free software. Do you still think so? Why? Do you believe “keep 100%

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On 2016년 9월 8일 오전 8시 56분 7초 GMT+09:00, Michael Lange wrote: >On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 08:00:25 +0900 >Byung-Hee HWANG wrote: > >> OK Stefan. I have to say that i like you. Because you really love >Free >> Software policy. However i cannot tell people to use

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 08:00:25 +0900 Byung-Hee HWANG wrote: > OK Stefan. I have to say that i like you. Because you really love Free > Software policy. However i cannot tell people to use Free Software. > Free Software policy is too stric to keep. Instead, i tell poeple that >

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

Byung-Hee HWANG wrote: > Anyway i respect Debian project, except Free Software policy. LoL

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

> Free Software is diffcult to non-programmer such me. This is a Debian discussion group. I think we all here agree that there's no reason Free Software should be difficult for non-programmers. Stefan

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:10 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote: > >>> In Korea, all most people are using KakaoTalk (android app). > >>> If i am wrong, sorry, and let it go to off-topic. > >> It's not decentralized. IOW you're dependent on one central > >> server/company and

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

>>> In Korea, all most people are using KakaoTalk (android app). >>> If i am wrong, sorry, and let it go to off-topic. >> It's not decentralized. IOW you're dependent on one central >> server/company and everything goes through them, they get an insane >> amount of data and power this way. Of

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

deloptes 께서 쓰시길, 《記事 全文 에서》: > [...] > South Korea - an example of democracy (irony off) OK. North Korea is "_Democratic_ People's Republic of Korea" officially. Anyway, someday far later, we will do unify to one like as Germany.

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On 2016-09-02, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > In theory, the server could react to a TCP disconnect, but that won't > tell it which part of the stream was received and which wasn't, so in > practice, XMPP servers don't even care to check for a TCP disconnect > error in order

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

>> "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an >>                 unreliable messaging system" > Email is getting less and less reliable, so have you given up using it?? :-( There's unreliable and there's unreliable. In the XMPP world, the basic protocol will just send the message to the

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Thu 01 Sep 2016 at 16:05:45 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > In Korea, all most people are using KakaoTalk (android app). > > If i am wrong, sorry, and let it go to off-topic. > > It's not decentralized. IOW you're dependent on one central > server/company and everything goes through them,

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

Stefan Monnier wrote: >> In Korea, all most people are using KakaoTalk (android app). >> If i am wrong, sorry, and let it go to off-topic. > > It's not decentralized. IOW you're dependent on one central > server/company and everything goes through them, they get an insane > amount of data and

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 14:08:36 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote: > On Wednesday 31 August 2016 11:31:18 Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > On Wednesday 31 August 2016 15:45:42 Mark Fletcher wrote: > > > Well and > > > good -- actually, very good, because it prevents me making the > > > stupid mistake I

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

> In Korea, all most people are using KakaoTalk (android app). > If i am wrong, sorry, and let it go to off-topic. It's not decentralized. IOW you're dependent on one central server/company and everything goes through them, they get an insane amount of data and power this way. Stefan

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 06:21:22PM +, Amir H. Firouzian wrote: > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Henning Follmann > wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 06:12:36PM +, Amir H. Firouzian wrote: > > > It's not my point of view, It's P2P philosophy. > > LOL, you

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

Joe wrote: > On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:27:51 +0200 > deloptes wrote: > Sorry for not being able to answer earlier. There are some points here that need to be emphasized. >> Lisi Reisz wrote: >> >> > >> >> About reliability - I have not seen recently undelivered mails >>

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 14:23:01 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 16:10:37 (+0200), Nicolas George wrote: > > Le quartidi 14 fructidor, an CCXXIV, David Wright a écrit : > > > The error might have been mine. I think I CC'd Lisi in error. > > > The other list I'm on expects people

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Henning Follmann wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 06:12:36PM +, Amir H. Firouzian wrote: > > It's not my point of view, It's P2P philosophy. > LOL, you really crack me up. P2P philosophy? Seriously? > Is that taught at some

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 06:12:36PM +, Amir H. Firouzian wrote: > It's not my point of view, It's P2P philosophy. LOL, you really crack me up. P2P philosophy? Seriously? Is that taught at some university? Can you have a P2PhD there? > if you consider the project that try to collect Internet

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 15:04:26 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 00:34:47 (+0100), Brian wrote: > > > > Additionally, I have learned a little more about mutt's behaviour. > > > > (default: L) > > > > Reply to the current or tagged message(s) by extracting any addresses

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

2016-08-31 14:31 GMT+02:00 Brian : > On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 10:54:53 +0200, claude juif wrote: > > > > Le 31 août 2016 9:48 AM, "Joe" a écrit : > > > > > > Email is still a useful messaging protocol, it is somewhat broken, but > > > the cure absolutely

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

2016-08-31 15:44 GMT+02:00 Stefan Monnier : > > It's better that your message Not arrive instead of being disclose! and > > This is the philosophy behind True P2P IM systems. > > Oh, I don't need 100% absolutely guaranteed delivery. > > Just some reasonable expectation

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wednesday 31 August 2016 19:40:18 Curt wrote: > On 2016-08-31, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Wednesday 31 August 2016 17:45:07 Curt wrote: > >> as is your own post in which you did not wrap your lines. > > > > Does everyone else agree with this? They are displaying wrapped

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Brian wrote: > On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 13:14:08 +, Amir H. Firouzian wrote: > > > There is a trade off between decentralization & reliability. Traditional > > E-Mail that people are talking about is NOT TRULY decentral. > > For instance

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 00:34:47 (+0100), Brian wrote: > On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 17:22:34 -0500, David Wright wrote: > > > On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 20:26:45 (+0100), Brian wrote: > > > On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 19:31:08 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > > > > Just out of interest, why have you sent a

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 18:45:34 (+0100), Brian wrote: > On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 11:18:10 -0500, David Wright wrote: > > > On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 09:59:42 (-0400), Henning Follmann wrote: > > > > > > However, why email is still reliable, because a proper setup provides you > > > with a well defined

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 16:10:37 (+0200), Nicolas George wrote: > Le quartidi 14 fructidor, an CCXXIV, David Wright a écrit : > > The error might have been mine. I think I CC'd Lisi in error. > > The other list I'm on expects people to group-reply. > > I forgot myself. After some experiments, I

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On 2016-08-31, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Wednesday 31 August 2016 17:45:07 Curt wrote: >> as is your own post in which you did not wrap your lines. > > Does everyone else agree with this? They are displaying wrapped for me, and > the setting requires them to wrap and is still

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 13:14:08 +, Amir H. Firouzian wrote: > There is a trade off between decentralization & reliability. Traditional > E-Mail that people are talking about is NOT TRULY decentral. > For instance think about how E-Mail work: > 1- Mail Client Query MX record from DNS IM

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wednesday 31 August 2016 17:45:07 Curt wrote: > as is your own post in which you did not wrap your lines. Does everyone else agree with this? They are displaying wrapped for me, and the setting requires them to wrap and is still set to column 78. (I have just checked.) If they are not

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

It's not my point of view, It's P2P philosophy. if you consider the project that try to collect Internet Informations; This philosophy seems to be rational. On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Henning Follmann wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 01:14:08PM +, Amir H.

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wednesday 31 August 2016 11:31:18 Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Wednesday 31 August 2016 15:45:42 Mark Fletcher wrote: > > Well and > > good -- actually, very good, because it prevents me making the > > stupid mistake I frequently make of cc-ing the poster of the mail I > > am replying to. > > But it

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On 2016-08-31, Lisi Reisz wrote: >> >> How about postings in HTML as a case in point of egregious violation? > > Purely factually, it was in multipart-alternative. I hadn't even noticed > that my nice plain text display was attched to the possibility of displaying > HTML.

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wednesday 31 August 2016 17:12:43 Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Wednesday 31 August 2016 17:01:36 Curt wrote: > > On 2016-08-31, Mark Fletcher wrote: > > > By participating in this list you implicitly agree to abide by the code > > > of conduct; authority is not granted to you to

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wednesday 31 August 2016 17:01:36 Curt wrote: > On 2016-08-31, Mark Fletcher wrote: > > By participating in this list you implicitly agree to abide by the code > > of conduct; authority is not granted to you to decide which parts of it > > you will abide by and which not. >

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On 2016-08-31, Mark Fletcher wrote: > >> > By participating in this list you implicitly agree to abide by the code of > conduct; authority is not granted to you to decide which parts of it you > will abide by and which not. > How about postings in HTML as a case in point of

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

Le quintidi 15 fructidor, an CCXXIV, Lisi Reisz a écrit : > But it doesn't prevent Nicolas from deliberately cc-ing most of the rest of > us > when replying to our mails; which is exceedingly annoying and is NOT in > compliance with the CoC. I do not "deliberately" cc anyone most of the time,

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wednesday 31 August 2016 15:45:42 Mark Fletcher wrote: > Well and > good -- actually, very good, because it prevents me making the stupid > mistake I frequently make of cc-ing the poster of the mail I am replying > to. But it doesn't prevent Nicolas from deliberately cc-ing most of the rest of

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:11 PM Nicolas George wrote: > Le quartidi 14 fructidor, an CCXXIV, David Wright a écrit : > This clause of the code of conduct is unsustainable, and therefore should > be > ignored until the configuration is fixed and the corresponding clause >

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

Le quartidi 14 fructidor, an CCXXIV, David Wright a écrit : > The error might have been mine. I think I CC'd Lisi in error. > The other list I'm on expects people to group-reply. > I forgot myself. Systematic group-reply is the correct way of using mailing-lists, because it is the only way that

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

> It's better that your message Not arrive instead of being disclose! and > This is the philosophy behind True P2P IM systems. Oh, I don't need 100% absolutely guaranteed delivery. Just some reasonable expectation that messages won't be silently dropped on the floor in fairly normal

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 01:14:08PM +, Amir H. Firouzian wrote: > [...] > About you last sentence: > It's better that your message Not arrive instead of being disclose! and > This is the philosophy behind True P2P IM systems. Getting offtopic here. However, please elaborate why this is

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

There is a trade off between decentralization & reliability. Traditional E-Mail that people are talking about is NOT TRULY decentral. For instance think about how E-Mail work: 1- Mail Client Query MX record from DNS 2- Connect to SMTP Server and Exchange E-Mail. 3- SMTP figure out the sender IP

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wed 31 Aug 2016 at 10:54:53 +0200, claude juif wrote: > > Le 31 août 2016 9:48 AM, "Joe" a écrit : > > > > Email is still a useful messaging protocol, it is somewhat broken, but > > the cure absolutely must not be worse than the disease, or we'll all > > end up using

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wednesday 31 August 2016 07:27:51 deloptes wrote: > Use authorized > SMTP servers. mailhost.zen.co.uk https://www.zen.co.uk/ As I said, lucky you. Lisi

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

Hi, Come on guys, the OP ask about instant messaging and mail is everything except instant messaging. IRC with recording bot could do the job. (But it's clearly old and kind of hard to setup) By the way, you could make a simple app based on AMQP protocol to fit your need. Regards, Le 31 août

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:27:51 +0200 deloptes wrote: > Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > >> About reliability - I have not seen recently undelivered mails > >> (except bounces between gmain and yahoo . > > > > Lucky you! > > > > Lisi > > Luck is something, that is out of

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

Lisi Reisz wrote: > >> About reliability - I have not seen recently undelivered mails (except >> bounces between gmain and yahoo . > > Lucky you! > > Lisi Luck is something, that is out of scope in terms of software. Use authorized SMTP servers. This means you can not install on your linux

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wednesday 31 August 2016 00:34:47 Brian wrote: > > I, too, have failed to email you, Brian, on one occasion recently. > > I used just the email address that is normally in your From: header. > > The address is valid and one I am entitled to use. However, it looks > like my ISP has fouled

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tuesday 30 August 2016 22:24:04 Brian wrote: > On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 22:09:51 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 20:26:45 Brian wrote: > > > > I tried to send this to you personally, by both routes readily > > > > available to me, but your email set-up kept rejecting it.  So

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 17:22:34 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 20:26:45 (+0100), Brian wrote: > > On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 19:31:08 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > > Just out of interest, why have you sent a personal copy of a reply to the > > > Debian list about an email of

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 20:26:45 (+0100), Brian wrote: > On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 19:31:08 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > Just out of interest, why have you sent a personal copy of a reply to the > > Debian list about an email of David Wright's to me, which is an irrelevant > > flouting of the code

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 20:42:42 +0100, Joe wrote: > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:53:35 +0100 > Brian wrote: > > > On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 17:49:34 +0100, Joe wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:59:42 -0400 > > > Henning Follmann wrote: > > > > >

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tuesday 30 August 2016 12:33:57 Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 17:18:10 David Wright wrote: > > The unreliability of email is also overreported by people > > whose homework, years earlier, was eaten by their dog. > > Years ago I sent a Guaranteed Delivery Letter to our local

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 22:09:51 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 20:26:45 Brian wrote: > > > I tried to send this to you personally, by both routes readily available > > > to me, but your email set-up kept rejecting it.  So here is my (mild) > > > protest publicly. ;-) > > > >

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tuesday 30 August 2016 20:26:45 Brian wrote: > > I tried to send this to you personally, by both routes readily available > > to me, but your email set-up kept rejecting it.  So here is my (mild) > > protest publicly. ;-) > > What were the two readily available routes open to you? Which

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 20:42:05 +0100 Brian wrote: > On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 15:05:02 -0400, Henning Follmann wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:49:34PM +0100, Joe wrote: > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:59:42 -0400 > > > Henning Follmann wrote: >

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tuesday 30 August 2016 19:51:39 Brian wrote: > > So one large and dominating ISP is rejecting emails from an inconvenient, > > smaller, rival because there are "too many" of them. > > Don't follow this either. Because I had to snip the error message. I'll try reporting non-verbatim indirect

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tuesday 30 August 2016 19:51:39 Brian wrote: > But you allow Zen to determine the nature of > your mails? Since I haven't got my own server I have no choice but to accept it if whatever SMTP server I am using simply rejects the email and refuses to send it. This is the first time it has

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 15:05:02 -0400 Henning Follmann wrote: > > > > You have a much too simplistic view of todays anti-spam measures. > > If an smtp server tries to deliver a messages, usually the first the > receiving server does, during the helo, checking if the

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 18:53:35 +0100 Brian wrote: > On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 17:49:34 +0100, Joe wrote: > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:59:42 -0400 > > Henning Follmann wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:52:14PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: >

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 15:05:02 -0400, Henning Follmann wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:49:34PM +0100, Joe wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:59:42 -0400 > > Henning Follmann wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:52:14PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > On

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 19:31:08 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > Just out of interest, why have you sent a personal copy of a reply to the > Debian list about an email of David Wright's to me, which is an irrelevant > flouting of the code of conduct rules??? ;-) It's not like you Brian to make >

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 05:49:34PM +0100, Joe wrote: > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:59:42 -0400 > Henning Follmann wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:52:14PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 14:05:36 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > > "shocked that

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 19:16:10 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 18:50:21 deloptes wrote: > > I have not seen recently undelivered mails > > Lucky you! Not luck, it's good management. Receiving SMTP servers accept messages which are RFC compliant. If they do not they are

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

Just out of interest, why have you sent a personal copy of a reply to the Debian list about an email of David Wright's to me, which is an irrelevant flouting of the code of conduct rules??? ;-) It's not like you Brian to make Human Errors. ;-) Lisi I tried to send this to you personally, by

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 15:09:28 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 14:59:42 Henning Follmann wrote: > > However, why email is still reliable, because a proper setup provides you > > with a well defined error messages (in case it is not delivered). > > We have different

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

> About reliability - I have not seen recently undelivered mails (except > bounces between gmain and yahoo . Lucky you! Lisi

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tuesday 30 August 2016 18:50:21 deloptes wrote: > I have not seen recently undelivered mails Lucky you! [had to snip quotation from rejecting notification because Zen identified the email as spam!!] So one large and dominating ISP is rejecting emails from an inconvenient, smaller, rival

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 19:50:21 +0200, deloptes wrote: > Thinking about Lizi's story and the postman ... where is in > the "decentralized" scenario the "postman", how does he look like ... etc. He looks just like you.

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 17:49:34 +0100, Joe wrote: > On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:59:42 -0400 > Henning Follmann wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:52:14PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 14:05:36 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > > "shocked that

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

ll look like. For sure the years we live in will be called the spam-era in the history books dealing with e-mail. Perhaps this question about "decentralized reliable instant messaging" should be raised with some of the developers of instant messengers and it can be implemented as a feature,

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 11:18:10 -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 09:59:42 (-0400), Henning Follmann wrote: > > > > However, why email is still reliable, because a proper setup provides you > > with a well defined error messages (in case it is not delivered). > > There are

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 09:59:42 -0400 Henning Follmann wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:52:14PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 14:05:36 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an > > >                

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tuesday 30 August 2016 17:18:10 David Wright wrote: > The unreliability of email is also overreported by people > whose homework, years earlier, was eaten by their dog. Years ago I sent a Guaranteed Delivery Letter to our local Council. They claimed not to have received it. As it was very

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tue 30 Aug 2016 at 09:59:42 (-0400), Henning Follmann wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:52:14PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 14:05:36 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an > > >                 unreliable messaging system" >

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tuesday 30 August 2016 16:34:25 Dan Purgert wrote: > Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 14:05:36 Stefan Monnier wrote: > >> "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an > >>                 unreliable messaging system" > > > > Email is getting less and less reliable, so have

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 14:05:36 Stefan Monnier wrote: >> "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an >>                 unreliable messaging system" > > Email is getting less and less reliable, so have you given up using it?? :-( > > Lisi Email (according to the

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

Gene Heskett wrote: > ebay themselves very carefully fine tunes their crap, always hitting > exactly 5.0 from spamassassin. But you put up with that from ebay > because they are the worlds defacto dept. store and have been for years > despite Jeff B's best efforts at amazon. 5.0 gets sent to

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tuesday 30 August 2016 09:59:42 Henning Follmann wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:52:14PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 14:05:36 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an > > >                 unreliable messaging system" > > >

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tuesday 30 August 2016 14:59:42 Henning Follmann wrote: > However, why email is still reliable, because a proper setup provides you > with a well defined error messages (in case it is not delivered). We have different definitions of reliable!! Being told a day or two later that your email

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 02:52:14PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Tuesday 30 August 2016 14:05:36 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an > >                 unreliable messaging system" > > Email is getting less and less reliable, so have you given up using

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tuesday 30 August 2016 14:05:36 Stefan Monnier wrote: > "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an >                 unreliable messaging system" Email is getting less and less reliable, so have you given up using it?? :-( Lisi

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

> You can't have all the best together. What does that mean, exactly? Are you saying it doesn't have reliable message delivery? If so, that'd be a deal breaker for me. Stefan "shocked that anyone would want to design or use an unreliable messaging system" > This

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

You can't have all the best together. This mention in previous E-Mails as well. E.g: <20160817192400.GB9964@alum> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > I think you looking for TOX! > > Visit TOX Project website: > > https://tox.chat > > Thanks.

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

> I think you looking for TOX! > Visit TOX Project website: > https://tox.chat Thanks. That does look promising (although I don't see any mention of reliable delivery), Stefan > On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Stefan Monnier > wrote: >> I'm looking for a

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wed 17 Aug 2016 at 19:57:25 (+0100), Brian wrote: > On Wed 17 Aug 2016 at 14:27:16 -0400, Dan Ritter wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 01:32:47PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote: > > > Having said that, if you want something truly decentralized you might look > > > at: > > > - gnutella chat > >

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wed 17 Aug 2016 at 14:27:16 -0400, Dan Ritter wrote: > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 01:32:47PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote: > > Having said that, if you want something truly decentralized you might look > > at: > > - gnutella chat > > It is decentralized, and as a result cannot implement reliable

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 01:32:47PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Stefan Monnier wrote > > > I'm looking for a decentralized instant message system (e.g. XMPP, SIP, > > ...) where I can be sure that I receive all messages, even if I'm not > > connected when the message

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wed 17 Aug 2016 at 10:52:00 +0430, Amir H. Firouzian wrote: > I think you looking for TOX! > Visit TOX Project website: > https://tox.chat I'd not heard of this (why should I?). Is it regarded as a Skype competitor (we could do with a free one)? Is it going anywhere? And how does it perform

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

Stefan Monnier wrote I'm looking for a decentralized instant message system (e.g. XMPP, SIP, ...) where I can be sure that I receive all messages, even if I'm not connected when the message is sent [ Obviously, I'll only receive them when I'm back online. ] IIUC

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On 08/17/2016 10:41 AM, Darac Marjal wrote: > How is sending by AOL decentralised? Hi Darac -- I suggested looking at pidgin and pidgin-otr to meet the stated needs. The fact that my use of AOL IM via pidgin was not such an example was not intended to mislead anyone. You are correct that AOL

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 10:17:26AM -0400, Ralph Katz wrote: On 08/12/2016 10:49 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: I'm looking for a decentralized instant message system (e.g. XMPP, SIP, ...) where I can be sure that I receive all messages, even if I'm not connected when the message is sent [ Obviously,

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On 08/12/2016 10:49 PM, Stefan Monnier wrote: > I'm looking for a decentralized instant message system (e.g. XMPP, SIP, > ...) where I can be sure that I receive all messages, even if I'm not > connected when the message is sent [ Obviously, I'll only receive them > when I'm back online. ] > >

Re: Decentralized reliable instant messaging?

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 11:22:10 PM Ben Finney wrote: > rhkra...@gmail.com writes: > SMS probably does not count as a decentralised system in the sense the > original poster is seeking. > > > Google Voice > > Google's services are highly centralised to a single vendor. I am not sure what

  1   2   >