Re: [plasma] why not web portal mail?

Trevor Freeman <> Fri, 15 April 2011 17:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3500313001A for <>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E3rC63cOd3Zz for <>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA4FF130062 for <>; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:59:51 -0700
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:59:51 -0700
Received: from ([fe80::7c94:4036:120:c95f]) by ([fe80::d940:e316:1daa:5e6a%10]) with mapi id 14.01.0218.012; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:59:51 -0700
From: Trevor Freeman <>
To: Leif Johansson <>
Thread-Topic: [plasma] why not web portal mail?
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:59:51 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [plasma] why not web portal mail?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The PoLicy Augmented S/Mime \(plasma\) bof discussion list." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:00:00 -0000


I am sure Plasma is applicable to XMPP.

The question I am trying to answer in my mind is what is happing to the data. While there are a lot of similarities, they are not identical so we can to look at the expected behavior of the client wrt the data. While IM exchanges data I don’t see in current clients the commingling and reuse of data you get with email. That should be goodness for XMPP because the complications for email lie in this comingling and reuse. 

If you can write up a use case for non-store and forward as well as store and forward I can incorporate them into the requirements doc. 



-----Original Message-----
From: Leif Johansson [] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 2:14 PM
To: Trevor Freeman
Cc: Peter Saint-Andre;
Subject: Re: [plasma] why not web portal mail?

Hash: SHA1

On 04/13/2011 07:08 PM, Trevor Freeman wrote:
> Ok then I don’t get the use case. 
> Can you describe when a user would do such a thing and what are they trying to accomplish? 

OK I'll try to spell it out...

The point I was trying to make is and was that the same requirements and UCs that apply to email apply equally well to XMPP. The fact that XMPP _has_ store-and-forward capabilities doesn't mean it is _exactly_ the same thing as email.

I believe the difficulty of building web-only XMPP clients and the fact that plasma-like capabilities are probably equally useful for XMPP as for email is a response to Stephens question "Why not build a web-applications?".

	Cheers Leif
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -