Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Absolutely, however a major problem occurs, and email is a great example of this. When there is a fundamental need to change the protocol for reasons of privacy, security, authentication, etc. It becomes almost impossible to do when it is as wide spread as email, or it takes a very very long time to spread enough.

When one person controls the whole system, it's easy to pivot rapidly. I guess that's another argument against having widely used protocols (even though I disagree with it.)



I think that's a great argument for keeping widely used protocols. I don't want any one person, or one entity, to rapidly pivot my critical infrastructure (whether it is "broken" or not). The slowness of change is a feature.


What's insecure or frozen about email? We have SPF and all that jazz.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: