[p2p-research] P2P Email

[marc fawzi]

I'd agree with all you state Ryan except for the fact that it is not
about inter-mediation. It's about fixed centers of dependency and
single points of failure a la Gmail. When Gmail is down, those who use
it are screwed because the Internet continues to move ahead at the
speed of light while they have to sit idle and wait until Google fixed
Gmail.

The argument is not about inter-mediation. It's about centralization.

However, when Marco entered into the argument and stated that a
less-than-pure p2p architecture for email is already in use and has
been in wide use since the early 90s (by most high tech companies
including my first employer) but my experience with setting up my own
SMTP/POP server on my own machine involved configuring my router/NAT
and firewall which is beyond what the average person is willing to do.
So my argument with Marco was not to say that inter-mediation is bad,
but to say that the solution he uses can never be pervasive and thus
can never be "true p2p" ...

It's funny that the pure p2p architecture (with coordination and
redundancy but no inter-mediation) is also designed to be truly
pervasive!

Marc

On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 6:27 AM, 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
>
>



-- 

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