[Freedombox-discuss] Leaving the (proprietary) cloud - my roadmap for FB

[paxcoder]

On 10/08/2010 05:09 PM, bertagaz wrote:
>> >  Biggest issue I see in incoming smtp is the CPU burden of spam
>> >  filtering.  I would not want to trust peers in judging which emails are
>> >  relevant to me to receive, weighted against the CPU burden of decent
>> >  reliability of filtering mechanisms.
>>      
> The "CPU burden" depends on the email traffic at some point. If people
> have a very lot of that traffic, they might consider using a more
> powerfull hardware. I often ask myself how many services a shivaplug can
> handle. If people use a lot of cloud services, I guess if they want to
> use the FB, installing it on a more powerfull hardware is a good idea
> anyway.
>    

Agreed. FB a personal box. 5 people max. Scale to real server 
hardware&software for other uses.
Jonas, if you're going to ask me when did we agree FB is for personal 
use only, I'm going to cry.

If you ask me, the issue is guaranteeing delivery through untrusted 
relayers.
You can ask for confirmation via SMTP, but people are known for 
disallowing it ("Do not notify" option), and it doesn't guarantee us the 
delivery of our mail to us from those not using our software. Can't mail 
just sit on outgoing server before we come back online, like we talked? 
Or are we talking about scenarios where you only connect once in a while 
to pick up your mail, by which time the timeout would already kick in?

On 10/08/2010 05:09 PM, bertagaz wrote:
>> >  Which reminds me: Outgoing smtp might be relevant even if avoiding
>> >  incoming smtp.  exactly for the purpose of auto-encrypting to peers.
>>      
> totally, that would be an interesting feature in a lot of cases.
>
>    

Ok, you two sound excited but I lost you there. Please explain.

On 10/08/2010 05:09 PM, bertagaz wrote:
>> >  GPG-encryption do not hide addresses, subject or other headers, which
>> >  users who would want to encrypt their backups at peers likely would want
>> >  secret as well.  Which means double CPU burden as it needs yet another
>> >  layer of encryption.
>>      
> Well, as long as one of the CPU burden takes place on the sender SMTP,
> it's not that a problem then. But you're right, it might not be an
> effective solution for backups in that case.
>
>    

Again, I don't see why encrypting an occasional mail at own machine is a 
problem. You'd encrypt every other file on your system, so why not this?

On 10/08/2010 05:09 PM, bertagaz wrote:
>> >  I lost you there.  You feel it is bad to start organizing now?
>>      
> No, I feel like this project isn't enough organized, laking of decision
> making processes and all. But maybe I'm too enthusiastic, and want ot see
> it done, and really soon:)
>    

Agreed (of course).
--Luka Marčetić