Re: Federation protocols

On 1 June 2013 14:54, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:

> Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> On 1 June 2013 03:49, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net <mailto:
>> mfidelman@**meetinghouse.net <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>>> wrote:
>>
>>     Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>
>>
>>         We could indeed use SMTP for messaging and it has advantages,
>>         but it would be nice to get the web up to be able to do
>>         something as simple as sending messages between two parties
>>         after more than 20 years.  We're not there yet, and if we can
>>         even achieve that small step it's a victory!
>>
>>
>>     Umm, why?
>>
>>     Messaging is messaging.  The "web" is HTTP and hypertext -
>>     client-server computing.  Two different things.
>>
>>     And, by the way, there've been server-based email systems for at
>>     least 60 years.
>>
>>
>> Try taking two users at random on the FSW on different networks.  Then
>> try sending a message from user 1 to user 2.  In many cases there's no
>> standard way to do it.
>>
>
> Ummm.... SMTP, SMS?


Sure what I mean is to translate that into the web.  ie that you have a
sender address and receiver address with a message body.  Major
communication systems, SMS, email, telphone, postal service all can do
this, but strangely the web (ie http) cant yet.  HTTP POST lets you send to
an address and a message body, but does NOT easily allow you to see who the
sender is.

Hopefully we can fix that soon!


>
>
>
> --
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
>
>
>