Re: Trying to do too much (was Re: the introduction problem, etc.)

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 5/18/22 19:53, Jim Fenton wrote:

> Reading this long thread on the introduction problem and all sorts of other things reminds me that it isn’t productive to try to solve all of email’s problems with a single protocol. Email evolved as an easy way to contact basically anyone, and as a result got used for a lot of applications with different (and even conflicting) requirements.
>
> We should be working defining a number of protocols that handle some of the things that email is used for today, and that email doesn’t do well.

This doesn't sound right to me at all.   Just because email is used for 
so many different things (some of which are a better "fit" than others) 
doesn't mean that people's burdens would be reduced by managing many 
more applications/services than they do now.  And while we could find 
more efficient ways of delivering some of those kinds of traffic, doing 
so wouldn't reduce the burdens on end users, and could easily make their 
situations worse.

(If anything, email might be too efficient already... so efficient that 
email has become the last-resort way of delivering any kind of message 
whatsoever, even if (or especially if) it is of very low value to the 
recipient.)

The situation that exists today is arguably one of too many messaging 
services.  It used to be the case that a well-connected individual might 
have multiple email accounts - UUCP, BITNET, CSnet, etc. so as to be 
maximally reachable by others.   These days it's not unusual for a 
person to have multiple email accounts (in case email to one is blocked 
by a spam filter) AND also facebook, linkedin, twitter, etc. accounts.   
In the old days there was at least some interoperability between some 
different email systems; these days there is basically none.

And though there might be a few advantages of some of these alternative 
services, most of them are profoundly dysfunctional in most ways when 
compared to email.

Keith