[p2p-research] P2P Email

marc fawzi marc.fawzi at gmail.com
Sat May 9 11:24:09 CEST 2009 

Dear all,

I am very sorry for using words like "dumb" and "very wrong" What I
mean and I mean this genuinely is that that the argument, separate
from its author, is "dumb" or "very wrong"

So no offense Marco, sorry if it comes across differently

Having said that, I realize that even arguments have feelings,
separate from the author, so I'll keep my tone in check with respect
to what I see wrong about the argument.

Marc

On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 1:51 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
> Marco wrote:
> "a) running the system on one's home or mobile computers, rather than
>  buying/renting for this very purpose a virtual server in a reliable
>  datacenter is such a bad idea for so many technical and other
>  reasons from social to environmental, reasons which DON'T change at
>  all whatever version of IP is used, that I don't think I'll ever do
>  it myself, nor I recommend it to anybody who uses email for more
>  than casual chat.
> "
>
> You're still missing the tunneling part  and you brought up the static
> IP part which is not part of the P2P Email architecture (that would be
> dumb since it ties a client to a specific network access point)
>
> IPv6 ALLOWS point to point communication with ease where it is very
> difficult today. That is the whole point. Suggesting that we'd use the
> static IP feature of IPv6 is very wrong in the context of a P2P Email
> architecture.
>
> Marco wrote:
> "
>>> In the best case, it means that you MUST carry that object along
>>> with you every moment of your life, you can't ask a friend "let me
>>> check my email, please" A nightmare.
>>
>> theoretically yes, one could introduce new protocols to add
>> redundancy, security and robustness to such a scenario, or,
>> individually, buy server-class hardware, UPS for backup power,
>> subscribe to two or more ISPs for redundant connectivity, that is
>> spend 10x or more each month than a virtual server costs. But why?
> "
>
> Completely wrong in the context of the commonly understood P2P architecture.
>
> See preceding comments on NOT using static IP.
>
> Wherever your connect from as long as you have an ID on the P2P
> network you can be routed it to.
>
> I'm suggesting that P2P Email is local to those using a particular P2P
> client but if client developers agree on a standard then it becomes
> global p2p email, since all clients will share the same distributed
> user ID lookup inrastructure (think DNS like mechanism for user IDs so
> instead of email being sent to a domain it is sent to a user ID) and
> same transport protocol.
>
> So I think the problem in this communication is the intuition of a
> software engineer (myself) which is normally matched to the intuition
> of other software engineers when discussing software architecture but
> cannot be readily matched to the intuition of someone who is not
> versed in software architecture and commonly understood patterns both
> at the network and software architecture levels.
>
> That is why it was misunderstood by Marco that I'm suggesting static
> IP addresses be used for routing rather than p2p user IDs which would
> be picked up right away by any person whose background is in network
> and software architecture.
>
> So with p2p email as I'm suggesting you are completely empowered and
> redundancy is  easily achieved in an IPv6 based network and
> established architectural patterns exist and are used in p2p
> architectures in all of the p2p file-sharing apps that exist today.
> Also, email can be picked up from any PC or device running the p2p
> client. It's just like email today except it is based on a p2p network
> rather than centralized or distributed/federated network. The whole
> domain name bullshit needs to go and people need to start accessing
> web pages and email etc by P2P ID not by domain names. You ID is
> everything you need and everything anyone needs to reach you in a true
> p2p network.
>
> Key issue for p2p architectures in Ipv6 environment is going to be
> security (it already is in IPv4 but as p2p becomes more widely used
> the security [of each client machine] becomes a bigger issue)
>
> Marc
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:10 PM, M. Fioretti <mfioretti at nexaima.net> wrote:
>> (properly trimmed, quoted with standard markers, reformatted in
>> natural reading order and with attribution restored, out of respect of
>> future archive readers and other subscribers who may have jumped in
>> right now, or be confused by the technical details)
>>
>> On Fri, May 08, 2009 20:00:34 PM -0700, marc fawzi wrote:
>>> Marco Fioretti wrote:
>>> > I take this as a confirmation that when you say "p2p mail" you
>>> > mean:
>>> >
>>> >"everybody managing all their incoming and transmitted email
>>> >directly and exclusively from THEIR OWN PERSONAL COMPUTER, ie the
>>> >personal laptops, PDAs, whatever... that they always carry with
>>> >them, or the personal desktop computers they have under their desk
>>> >at home".
>>>
>>> Correct, in the context of my definition of "p2p" which is somewhat
>>> purist when it comes to the p2p architecture.
>>>
>>> However, in that definition I include distribution for redundancy
>>> and some centralized coordination (that can be distributed too for
>>> redundancy) so, with respect to the latter, it's not completely
>>> decentralized.
>>
>> OK, so this is where the difference and the source of former confusion
>> is. Let's then restart and sum up a few other things for the benefits of
>> our readers.
>>
>> To have a permanent email address, send and receive email with it, a
>> generic Joe User needs:
>>
>> 1) an email address with a name (left of the @ sign) and a domain part
>>   (right of the @ sign):  joe.user at somedomain.com
>>
>> 2) one or more computers (physical or VIRTUAL), directly connected
>>   24x7 to the Internet, with FIXED numeric IP address(es), because IP
>>   packets are routed to IP addresses, NOT domain names. If the IP
>>   addresses weren't constant, your email correspondents would never
>>   know what your address will be next week, ie nothing would work.
>>
>> 3) some software, running on such computer(s) which sends, stores,
>>   receive email, filters spam, blocks viruses, sends autoresponders
>>   if needed, etc...
>>
>> NOTE: 2) and 3) together are, or should include, what is called a Mail
>> eXchange (MX), that is Joe User "email management and routing system".
>>
>> 4) an entry into the worldwide Domain Name System telling everybody
>>   worldwide that the MX for somedomain.com runs at the constant IP
>>   address(es) mentioned in 2). Without this mapping, NOTHING works,
>>   because IP packets are routed to IP addresses, NOT domain names.
>>
>> this is the way it works today, and I'm focusing on this. Futuristic
>> visions are good, but something else and a whole different thread, at
>> least for me here and now.
>>
>> Now, let's look again at points 1-4 above. What happens today is that
>> points 2-4 are centrally managed by corporations, who own the domain
>> part of the address (gmail, yahoo, everybody else) and provide the
>> service for money, advertising, etc... or as a business tool in the
>> case of work email addresses.
>>
>> Here we all agree that this is bad: privacy concerns, lack of
>> robustness, lack of flexibility, non standard configurations, no
>> rights to change the terms of services, etc...
>>
>> Starting from this common ground, Marc Fawzi says IPv6 will make p2p
>> email as defined above possible, because it will make available enough
>> static IP addresses that every individual will be able to do points
>> 2-4 directly without technical complications impossible to avoid today.
>>
>> In this vision, everybody will be able to associate to his static IPv6
>> address to his own personal computers and run on those personal
>> computers a new generation of email software integrating all I listed
>> in 3) and then some, without intermediaries.
>>
>> All the comments from Marc about NAT, bypassing firewalls etc... that
>> should disappear with the switch from IPv4 to IPv6 come from the fact
>> that:
>>
>> *) he suggests or envisions that people could and should use their
>>   everyday (mobile) computers for point 2
>>
>> *) but (and he's right on this) with IPv4 (today) these computers are
>>   routinely assigned "bogus" IP addresses which are very hard, or
>>   impossible, to make them "look" as static, ie suitable for email
>>   routing. In other words, with IPv4 it's impossible to run your
>>   email from your own personal computer. I agree on this, of course.
>>
>> Now, I agree that everybody taking full control of their own email
>> management is definitely a good thing. What I say is simply:
>>
>> a) running the system on one's home or mobile computers, rather than
>>   buying/renting for this very purpose a virtual server in a reliable
>>   datacenter is such a bad idea for so many technical and other
>>   reasons from social to environmental, reasons which DON'T change at
>>   all whatever version of IP is used, that I don't think I'll ever do
>>   it myself, nor I recommend it to anybody who uses email for more
>>   than casual chat.
>>
>> b) developing new software which would overcome all the problems
>>   created by using a cheap laptop as MX, and be simple to use is a
>>   very big task
>>
>> c) points 2-4 can be already done by individuals with IPv4 and
>>   existing software today. They're exactly what I, an individual, am
>>   already doing. What is missing to make worldwide p2p email is
>>   "only":
>>
>>      - laws that don't make this illegal or affordable only by big
>>        corporations, maybe an ICANN reform
>>      - ISPs selling "individual MX virtual servers" with a GUI which
>>        spares non geeks from all the manual configuration work I had
>>        to do by hand. No need for more server or client software,
>>        what exists is adequate, even if it should always be improved
>>      - enough IP addresses for everybody to have one to associate to
>>        their "individual MX virtual server" package.
>>
>> but last point is exactly the first thing I said yesterday: the only
>> reason I see why IPv6 should ever enter this picture is to have enough
>> numeric fixed addresses. Because every other problem caused by IPv4,
>> that is getting rid of NAT, working through ISPs or corporate
>> firewalls,etc... is true but irrelevant compared to the cons of
>> running a server from a personal computer. As I wrote yesterday:
>>
>>> Think Michel's laptop. Having a personal (= the one you carry with
>>> you, keep at home etc... ) cheap computer being the single point of
>>> routing and failure of your communications means that if it's
>>> stolen, drenched with coffee, blasted by electrical charges or
>>> breaks in any other way you're really toast. It means that if you go
>>> for a few days without broadband email to you gets bounced, because
>>> there's no other computer able to store it.
>>>
>>> In the best case, it means that you MUST carry that object along
>>> with you every moment of your life, you can't ask a friend "let me
>>> check my email, please" A nightmare.
>>
>> theoretically yes, one could introduce new protocols to add
>> redundancy, security and robustness to such a scenario, or,
>> individually, buy server-class hardware, UPS for backup power,
>> subscribe to two or more ISPs for redundant connectivity, that is
>> spend 10x or more each month than a virtual server costs. But why?
>>
>> Marco Fioretti
>> --
>> Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how
>> software is used *around* you:            http://digifreedom.net/node/84
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Marc Fawzi
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>



-- 

Marc Fawzi
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi

More information about the p2presearch mailing list