[cap-talk] email

[Rob Meijer]

On Thu, January 15, 2009 00:27, Anupam Simlot wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> This is probably a dumb idea. My ignorance is definitely
> betrayed here. Forgive me if someone has already
> proposed a similar or better idea. I came up with this
> while trying to figure out exactly what waterken is.
>
> E-mail is currently the most anarchic and abused part of
> the wild wild west, err sorry, the internet. I'm sure
> you're all aware of what's wrong with it so I won't
> delve into that here. What I would like to propose is an
> alternative, yet backwards compatible, system based on
> the concept of ocaps.
>
> In this system, messages are not one way but form a part
> of a transaction to request the target to perform
> certain operations.

What is the reason for wanting to make the messages 'not one way'?
If it is that recipient addresses are global, why not fix that problem
first in capability style and simply use sub addresses as sparse caps and
build on that?

Most MDA's support some form of sub addressing like user+mailbox at domain.com.
The mailbox part could be a per peer issued sparse cap that can be revoked
if needed.

( My rather delayed mailkey project http://polacanthus.net/mailkey/ will
try to build on that with a protocol allowing free delegation with
transfer of accountability. I'm getting a bit short on time for doing this
project, so if anyone would like to take it of my hands, let me know. )

Rob

Rob

Rob