nanog mailing list archives
Re: the e-mail of the future is the e-mail oft the past, was Enough port 26 talk...
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl () iecc com>
Date: 14 Jan 2019 13:49:06 -0500
And you won't really have a choice because unless you're willing to go full Ted Kaczynski one in a hundred of those emails will be very, very important to you ...
Yeah. E-mail remains the only scheme where the two parties don't have to be introduced first, don't have to be online at the same time, and you can check for it in one place (if you want to, or you can sort and file to your heart's content.)
I've stopped being surprised that enthusiasts who tell me that the IM or online conferencing silver bullet du jour will kill e-mail never understand this.
R's, John
Current thread:
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request], (continued)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Suresh Ramasubramanian (Jan 12)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan (Jan 12)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Cummings, Chris (Jan 12)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan (Jan 12)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Jason Hellenthal via NANOG (Jan 12)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan (Jan 12)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Jason Hellenthal via NANOG (Jan 12)
- Enough port 26 talk... Richard (Jan 12)
- Re: Enough port 26 talk... Bjørn Mork (Jan 13)
- Re: Enough port 26 talk... John Levine (Jan 13)
- Message not available
- Re: the e-mail of the future is the e-mail oft the past, was Enough port 26 talk... John R. Levine (Jan 14)
- Re: the e-mail of the future is the e-mail oft the past, was Enough port 26 talk... Miles Fidelman (Jan 14)
- Re: the e-mail of the future is the e-mail oft the past, was Enough port 26 talk... Bjørn Mork (Jan 15)
- Re: the e-mail of the future is the e-mail oft the past, was Enough port 26 talk... Stephen Satchell (Jan 15)
- Re: the e-mail of the future is the e-mail oft the past, was Enough port 26 talk... Tei (Jan 15)
- Re: the e-mail of the future is the e-mail oft the past, was Enough port 26 talk... James Downs (Jan 15)
- RE: the e-mail of the future is the e-mail oft the past, was Enough port 26 talk... Keith Medcalf (Jan 15)
- Re: the e-mail of the future is the e-mail oft the past, was Enough port 26 talk... Grant Taylor via NANOG (Jan 15)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan (Jan 12)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] valdis . kletnieks (Jan 12)
- Re: yet another round of SMTP Over TLS on Port 26 - Implicit TLS Proposal [Feedback Request] Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan (Jan 12)
