* ActivityPub <=> email bridge?
@ 2019-03-30 1:49 Eric Wong
2023-03-07 22:12 ` Eric Wong
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Eric Wong @ 2019-03-30 1:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: meta
Is it worth the effort?
Something tells me that if ActivityPub reaches high-enough
adoption levels; it'll have to deal with a spam problem that
email folks have been dealing with for decades, too.
So ActivityPub seems like a duplicated effort as far as it's use
for messaging for software development goes...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: ActivityPub <=> email bridge?
2019-03-30 1:49 ActivityPub <=> email bridge? Eric Wong
@ 2023-03-07 22:12 ` Eric Wong
2023-03-07 22:17 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Eric Wong @ 2023-03-07 22:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: meta
Eric Wong <e@80x24.org> wrote:
> Is it worth the effort?
Maybe...
> Something tells me that if ActivityPub reaches high-enough
> adoption levels; it'll have to deal with a spam problem that
> email folks have been dealing with for decades, too.
>
> So ActivityPub seems like a duplicated effort as far as it's use
> for messaging for software development goes...
Still true, but it seems to have caught on, lately...
If we manage to try this, it'll be using AP as a transport layer
and still requiring plain-text and RFC5322 (or 822/2822) plain-text
messages compatible with git-am.
That would allow SpamAssassin or similar to perform spam
filtering w/o modification.
Allowing markup or images from arbitrary posters is a nightmare
in terms of spam, phishing and illegal content, though; so
normal mailing list etiquette still applies.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: ActivityPub <=> email bridge?
2023-03-07 22:12 ` Eric Wong
@ 2023-03-07 22:17 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2023-03-07 22:25 ` Eric Wong
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Konstantin Ryabitsev @ 2023-03-07 22:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Wong; +Cc: meta
On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 10:12:10PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> > Something tells me that if ActivityPub reaches high-enough
> > adoption levels; it'll have to deal with a spam problem that
> > email folks have been dealing with for decades, too.
> >
> > So ActivityPub seems like a duplicated effort as far as it's use
> > for messaging for software development goes...
>
> Still true, but it seems to have caught on, lately...
>
> If we manage to try this, it'll be using AP as a transport layer
> and still requiring plain-text and RFC5322 (or 822/2822) plain-text
> messages compatible with git-am.
I'm not sure about the bridge, but I would very much welcome ability to
archive activitypub messages in a public-inbox archive, with full threading.
> That would allow SpamAssassin or similar to perform spam
> filtering w/o modification.
>
> Allowing markup or images from arbitrary posters is a nightmare
> in terms of spam, phishing and illegal content, though; so
> normal mailing list etiquette still applies.
Perhaps it's possible to allow attachments from specific instances, but the
default for any federated content is just plaintext content?
-K
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: ActivityPub <=> email bridge?
2023-03-07 22:17 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
@ 2023-03-07 22:25 ` Eric Wong
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Eric Wong @ 2023-03-07 22:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Konstantin Ryabitsev; +Cc: meta
Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 10:12:10PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> > > Something tells me that if ActivityPub reaches high-enough
> > > adoption levels; it'll have to deal with a spam problem that
> > > email folks have been dealing with for decades, too.
> > >
> > > So ActivityPub seems like a duplicated effort as far as it's use
> > > for messaging for software development goes...
> >
> > Still true, but it seems to have caught on, lately...
> >
> > If we manage to try this, it'll be using AP as a transport layer
> > and still requiring plain-text and RFC5322 (or 822/2822) plain-text
> > messages compatible with git-am.
>
> I'm not sure about the bridge, but I would very much welcome ability to
> archive activitypub messages in a public-inbox archive, with full threading.
*shrug* email messages may be able to reach a wider audience via AP.
> > That would allow SpamAssassin or similar to perform spam
> > filtering w/o modification.
> >
> > Allowing markup or images from arbitrary posters is a nightmare
> > in terms of spam, phishing and illegal content, though; so
> > normal mailing list etiquette still applies.
>
> Perhaps it's possible to allow attachments from specific instances, but the
> default for any federated content is just plaintext content?
Yes, basically anything acceptable to the existing mail community.
I realize sometimes people will need to post photos of failed
boot attempts, so I think those should be federated, too[1] but
absolutely NOT displayed by default in any UI.
[1] especially if they can be fetched via git
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-03-07 22:25 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-03-30 1:49 ActivityPub <=> email bridge? Eric Wong
2023-03-07 22:12 ` Eric Wong
2023-03-07 22:17 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2023-03-07 22:25 ` Eric Wong
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).