Re: Why are we here? What are our goals?

At 5:22 PM +0900 2/1/04, Dave Crocker wrote:
>Folks,
>
>Much of Nathaniel's list appears to be targeting unstated problems. In
>some cases, the targeting might be right but the suggested solution is
>only one of several.
>
>So, here's the game I like to try playing, when faced with a technical
>task and a technical group, for a human result:
>
>State the issues in entirely non-technical terms.  What enhancements
>do we seek, in terms that are visible and important to end-users and
>to operators?  No reference to protocols or formats is permitted.
>Talk only in terms of user interactions and operator actions.

This is an excellent idea.  For one thing, it forces a problem to be 
stated explicitly, and in terms of the endpoints (ok, the biological 
organisms generally referred to as "human") .

While it appears the examples you give are only intended as 
illustrations of the method, you've articulated several issues that 
deserve comment as they stand.  (But I'll only pick a couple  -- 
perhaps each of these should be their own thread...)

>For example, we want users to be able to exchange email in their
>native language.

At 5:15 PM +0100 2/1/04, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>I think most of them already do that...

The tacit assumption is that all parties to the message have the same 
native language.  Accepting that assumption, I generally agree. 
Although I'm not sure that those not using romanized scripts (or at 
least those that have a strong similarity to roman scripts) would say 
this is convenient or even possible.

>We want them to be able to have addresses that are
>expressed in their native character sets.

At 5:15 PM +0100 2/1/04, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>This is very dangerous anyone having a non-latin email address can't 
>expect to receive mail from people who don't master this character 
>set. So someone who speeks a non-latin language as well as a latin 
>one, would always have to provide two representations of his/her 
>email address in order to be reachable in both languages.

Well, now you've gone and made the tacit assumption explicit, 
Iljitsch.  Should it be possible for a sender using a romanized 
script to address a message destined for a receiver using an oriental 
script (to pick one specific situation)?


At 5:15 PM +0100 2/1/04, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
>Ok. The main thing that I desire from a new mail system is more 
>control over the mail I receive, and better feedback over what I 
>send. Because I run a business, I need to be able to receive mail 
>from people I don't know. However, I want to be sure it's actual 
>_people_ sending me messages and not robots programmed to abuse the 
>mail system. I now have decent anti-spam software, but the trouble 
>is that I still have to go through all rejected messages to see 
>whether there are any false positives.

Is this the question you're posing?

How can receivers increase their confidence that messages they 
receive are specifically intended for them?

Putting this as a goal to be achieved:

Receivers should be able to distinguish messages specifically 
addressed to them from those that are not.
-- 

john noerenberg
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   While the belief we  have found the Answer can separate us
   and make us forget our humanity, it is the seeking that continues
   to bring us together, that makes and keeps us human.
   -- Daniel J. Boorstin, "The Seekers", 1998
   ----------------------------------------------------------------------