[p2p-research] P2P Email

Sat May 9 15:38:20 CEST 2009

Hi Ryan:

you write: It is a way of interacting that may be ENABLED by technology, but
is not technology.

I agree, BUT. Isn't the fact that after the tribal age, social systems were
in fact architectured to make it difficult or impossible to practice, and
that, before the internet, it was much more limited in time and space?

In that case, technological affordances are not a minor matter?

However, I agree that what matters is indeed the human interaction. Nothing
in the current structure of the internet, the web, the use of gmail etc ...
prevents us from engaging with each other in a p2p way ... But without
ownership and control. they could conceivably be taken away, and in that
context, creating more 'pure' distributed infrastructures, is an interesting
strategy.

This being said, if the social situation would change substantially, and
anti-emancipatory forces would fight for more supremacy, even such
infrastructures would be swept away.

So then it becomes a matter of an integrative strategy: 1) engaging in p2p
whenever we can, with whatever means at our disposal; 2) being mindful of
the underlying infrastructures; 3) defend the P2P acquisitions against
rollback if necessary,

Michel

On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> My own view is that P2P has nothing to do with architectures.  Nothing.
> P2P could describe systems from 1370 or 400 BC.  It is a way of interacting
> that may be ENABLED by technology, but is not technology.
>
> I agree with Marc if Version 6 allows a greater facility (easiness) for
> collaboration, non-hierachical interactions, etc.  I agree with Marco that
> Version 4 may do all those things now with slight intermediation.  Is
> ENABLING P2P without inter-mediation better?  Yes, if it is feasible and not
> too costly.  Is inter-mediation inherently bad?  I'd argue no.
> ENABLING/Coaching/Mentoring/supporting/opening/facilitating...these are all
> worthy human ends in my view.  P2P idealizes a clear interaction, it doesn't
> demand it. Many systems can be overwhelmingly peer-2-peer (as I'd argue my
> gmail is today) with a gmail in the background.  Don't let the perfect be
> the enemy of the good.
>
> Ryan Lanham
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:00 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> I've spent some time working on a UDP based reliable p2p protocol over
>> IPv4 and eventually realized that, even though P2P architectures like
>> Skype and BitTorrent exist already that dont require
>> router/NAT/firewall configuration to work (but can work better with
>> the right configuration), the architectural requirements and the cost
>> of guaranteeing 100% reliability 100% of the time is too much given
>> that IPv6 would solve the core issues with client-to-client
>> communication and is supposedly just around the corner...
>>
>> So when IPv6 is finally here it will give rise to a huge growth in p2p
>> apps because it will be far less costly to build and maintain fast,
>> secure and reliable p2p (client to client) applications when you don't
>> have to jump thru hoops (as is the case now)
>>
>> Marc
>>
>> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:11 AM, M. Fioretti <mfioretti at nexaima.net>
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 08, 2009 07:22:34 AM -0700, marc fawzi wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> because there are no "turnkey" sw and
>> >>> service packages around which are tailored for this scenario, not
>> >>> because "ipv6 isn't here yet".
>> >>
>> >> There cannot be ANY one solution that works for ALL routers and
>> >> firewalls and NATs .... it's a zoo...
>> >
>> > 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".
>> >
>> > Is my understanding correct? Please let me know, otherwise it makes
>> > very little sense to spend time in more technical details.
>> >
>> > 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>  p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>

-- 
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com

Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090509/fb91e296/attachment-0001.html>