There is no authentication of the John Doe part of

   John Doe <not.john.doe@example.com>

You can (sort of, with a great deal of effort) but you don't.

And there is no effective way to prevent phishing in SMTP/etc if the server accepts connections from the public Internet.

If you didn't, I suggest reading the protocol draft and "Why TMTP?"

I don't get it, I can have all of this on email right now, and still be compatible with the rest of the world

> choose the organizations/sites that relay your correspondence

SPF/DKIM

> select which members of a site can correspond with you

whitelists have been a thing in a while

> always know from which site a message originated

SPF

> can block anyone with whom you’ve made contact

blacklists have been a thing in a while

> may leave a site and never see traffic from it again

domain filter are a thing too. preemptive 'but you still receive emails' - no you can send a 550 early on and interrupt the transfer as soon as you get the envelope sender domain

> 2 To offer capabilities missing in traditional email, including

that's all client side stuff and you can do all of it as of today on top of email. first part of the protocol is to know which user sent you markdown before, so you can send markdown to them. for user that you don't know if they have a markdown clent, your own client send a multipart with markdown and the local markdown representation as html, so you have a two-in-one discovery/fallback mechanism

while the first one might be beneficial as you give more control from the sysad and into the user hand for point 1.5, the second part is a problem we already had and we already solved with the transition from text email to html email and it was never a protocol issue to begin with, so I don't understand why it has been rolled in here for more effort and little effective gains.

These patents sound like they loosely describe a worse version of ssl/tls.

They talk about the client having a whitelist of IPs to form secure channels to, and using a combination of a dns proxy and cooperating client to form secure communication layers.

The actual described thing sounds a little different (i.e. 'requests for 192.168/24 have a transparently encrypted link' rather than tls handshakes), but not different enough that it's not obvious.

From the existence of SSL, dns, and a VPN, this idea seems quite obvious to me. In 1998, all of those things existed. The existence of SSL (in 1995), should have by itself invalidated this patent entirely IMO.

From the case filings, it sounds like the supposedly infringing part of Apple's tech is "VPN On Demand" and "FaceTime".

I am not a patent lawyer, I likely don't know what I'm talking about.

Was the game free? And did the people working on the game contribute a lot of their time to it for free?

If not then I can see the reason for your frustration, however it is not the same as free software being worked on (at least partly) by volunteers receiving the same lack of effort (or in signal's case nastiness) in bug submissions.

I understand when writing paid software with support expectations/contracts, sometimes you have to engage with the teeth-pulling exercise that is “does not work”. But why do you in FOSS? Can’t you just close the ticket and say “not descriptive enough” and move on?

I know this is a heated topic but I really don’t understand what the other options are. Having businesses dictate who they want to serve seems like censorship but having the government dictate it seems way worse. I’m not sure how to decouple or balance the freedom of will as a business, freedom of will as a person and the societal mandate of the majority (which is how democracy works? It’s always about the majority values).

>it's turtles all the way down

so you can see how people might disagree with you on whether someone is independent/reliable/etc.

>a) isn't possible.

Sure it is. "You deplatform someone after court order", or "you deplatform someone after measuring public opinion".These algorithms are just illustrative, before someone starts to point out why they're bad.

I just want objectivity and symmetry. Because I've seen far too many people do mental gymnastics and apply double standards when it comes to "our side" and "their side".

>b) is absolutely not desirable.

it is desirable for me. When it comes to politics, I'd prefer if everyone had a voice, even if you or I disagreed with them on a fundamental level.