Technobabbles I try to sound like I know what I'm talking about. Don't be fooled.

7Feb/100

reMAP: IMAP reConceptualized

Gabor Cselle, the founder of reMail, recently posted an idea for replacing the IMAP email protocol with something with which working would be easier. The proposed name? reMAP, short for reimagined Mail Access Protocol.

He calls for a RESTful design that among other things would globalize message identifiers (rather than changing them the instant a message is moved to a new folder), replace folders with labels (a la Gmail), require the server to handle email search indexes, and make conversations the basic unit of email (instead of individual messages). reMAP would also make handling MIME messages unnecessary; the client could simply call the server with a request for text or HTML message representations without having to deal with parsing the MIME format itself.

I personally am in agreement with his entire proposal. The experiences I've had with IMAP in the past have highlighted shortcomings in a standard that was drafted over 15 years ago. Email has changed a great deal since then, but IMAP has not been revised to accommodate the enhancements made by newer clients and services like Gmail.

If IMAP is to be improved, it's probably appropriate to just completely replace it with something new. If the new system can translate IMAP commands into the equivalent operations in its own protocol, that's even better, because then servers can be upgraded without worries of breaking compatibility with older clients or the need to run server applications for IMAP and reMAP side by side.

There's plenty of discussion going on at the original post and on Hacker News. If, however, you would like to say something here, please don't hesitate. ;)

As a side note, I see that Gabor is using Blogger's FTP publishing option, which will be going away soon. I hope the link will still work when he has to move.

11Jan/090

Caller ID Should Be Standard

A landline telephoneImage via WikipediaI don't particularly like using the telephone.

Don't get me wrong; it's nothing against the concept of talking to someone who's not there – I do that all the time online. It's not the fact that it's voice-based instead of text-based. (Actually it kind of is, but that's not the point of this post.)

One of the biggest reasons I don't like telephones is that it's sometimes impossible to know who's on the other end of the line. Caller ID is considered a premium feature and carries a charge somewhere in the area of $5/month per line. (This doesn't apply to cell phones, which have it built in. I'm strictly discussing landlines here.) Since when is knowing who's trying to contact you a privilege, not a right?

I know, I know; it takes resources, it's relatively new. Telephones have been around in concept since the mid-1800s; Caller ID was conceived in the late 1960s. But let me tell you something: Flash memory was first presented at the IEEE conference in 1984 by a Japanese employee of Toshiba, who invented the technology in 1980. Prices for that technology have fallen steeply in just ten years.

How about some perspective? For as long as I can remember (five years or so, in this case), Caller ID has been a good $5-$10 per month. It hasn't changed, either, as far as I know. By comparison, flash memory prices started at a good $100 or more for a few megabytes when my mother got her first digital camera (which took the no-longer-developed SmartMedia memory card) and are now down to $100-$150 for 16GB. That hardly seems fair, considering that both prices are for technological innovations that usually depreciate very rapidly.

Perhaps the lack of price decrease for Caller ID is caused by similar factors to those which create the sky-high fees on SMS messages. That is to say, carrier greed. (I also notice that landline telcos don't include long-distance calling as part of the phone line price, but that's a whole 'nother subject; I won't go there.)

So what if Caller ID was standard? Sure it might raise the basic price of a phone line a dollar or two, but that would be better than paying the ridiculous rates currently charged to have it as an add-on feature. (I'm taking a page from my economic experience that says package deals are always cheaper than a la carte options. Not saying that's always true; it's just a good rule of thumb.)

If I had Caller ID on every phone, I could look at it and answer or not answer based on who's calling, without paying extra, and gain more confidence in answering landline phones. (It's debatable whether landlines are even still useful what with prepaid cell phones and all that, but sometimes they're required for alarm systems. In which case being able to use them as intended is a nice bonus.)

And all this because I hate listening to telemarketers and recorded messages. Huh. Fancy that: Marketing makes me hate the medium on which it is delivered. Same as commercial television and radio (I spy a future post idea...) – but not the Internet; I can block ads on the Internet faster than you can say, "I hate advertisements."

Enhanced by Zemanta
Filed under: email, ideas, opinion No Comments
5Jun/080

SPAMfighter Tagline is Just Spam to Me

This is what I was doing while I was supposed to be finishing my coursework for the year. Don't worry, I'm working on homework now; this was supposed to publish four hours ago and didn't, so I tried again. Manually, because scheduled posting is temporarily borked.

HackedImage by Josh Walker via FlickrSpam is something everyone's heard of, and probably gotten at least a few times. Messages like the one on the right have been going around with different month names for a long time. These are the kinds of things most of us know to ignore (but somebody must be buying or else the spammers wouldn't bother).

Email taglines have probably been around longer, but they're not the work of spammers. Legitimate companies like Yahoo!, Microsoft (*cough*), and AOL (*cough cough*) have all used advertising taglines on their free email services, and only Yahoo! has so far gotten rid of them. I just wonder how effective they are. Personally, I ignore everything below the signature unless it says "PS".

Tagline ads are, to me, a pretty stupid marketing ploy. When software you've installed on your computer to protect you from ads starts sending out advertising of its own, however, I get very, very annoyed.

Personal Experience

My mother forwarded to me a message from one of her friends. It was a joke about the "ID-Ten-T" error -- I'm sure you've heard it (and if not, just click the link).

Granted, the ID-Ten-T error joke isn't all that funny, but the tagline on the email was worse. See, this friend of my mother's uses SPAMfighter to fight spam. (Yeah, yeah; what else would you use it for, etc. etc.) It has apparently caught 377 spam messages to date.

I'll just paste the whole tagline here:

I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 377 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: <link snipped>

That, frankly, makes me want to stay as far away from SPAMfighter as possible. I am told that paying users don't have the message, and am then offered a download of the free version, which will cause me to spam everyone I email with that same message.

Do they honestly think I'll download their program if I know for certain that it will do that? Seriously, I hate email taglines. Signatures are fine -- in fact, I have one myself, all of two or three lines -- but ads make me crazy. Especially if the product being advertised will cause me to send out those same taglines to other people.

So, you want me to use your anti-spam product? Limit features instead of tagging my email. Of course, I don't need an anti-spam product anyway because I have Gmail's spam filters. :D But not spamming your users' innocent contacts with ads would be a nice touch.

As a side topic, while I was composing this post, Zemanta showed me a couple of my own screenshots from Wikipedia as image suggestions. Cool!

Zemanta Pixie
21May/080

Gmail Tips

There are tips and then there are tips. I was just emailed by someone from another site, which yesterday published a lengthy list of tips for using Gmail effectively.

Some highlights include a few I've already heard of (Zoli Erdos' guide to importing old mail comes to mind), and a few ingenious hacks (like embedding MP3s in email; no specific link, just go near the bottom of the above-linked list). While the list mentions using Gmail's labels, it didn't seem to explain anything about them; so my views on using labels properly might complement those other tips.

It's not something I usually do here, blogging just a link -- I think such practices contribute too much to the "echo chamber" view many people hold of the Internet -- but rather than just submission to StumbleUpon, etc., I thought this one deserved a mention. Partly because it's a great list, and partly because the author took the time to reach out and ask me if this list would be useful to my readers (the few of you that there are, heh heh).

I note that the Gmail tips list is that blog's inaugural post, and I just left the third comment ever on the site (judging from its fragment ID, #comment-3). It might still be awaiting moderation; I haven't time to check.

But anyway, go read the list. Even I learned a few things, and I (at least like to think I) am an expert Gmail user. There's something in it for everyone.

As a side note, I probably will be continuing my sparse blogging schedule, as this is tech week for one theatrical production and next week is another, then I play in the orchestra at a graduation ceremony for my local high school. Plus I am behind in schoolwork. So all this Internet stuff is going to have to go on the back burner until a few of these commitments are out of the way.

10Apr/080

Email Not Reliable on One Server

Classmates, you can go direct to the webmail reload script if you're interested. :-)

Oh noes, I'z opening the school email can of worms again! I got the idea for this post from the frequent outages I experienced from my school's mail server in the past month or so. There hasn't been one in the last few days, which is good, but doesn't guarantee against more downing.

So anyway, coming back to the computer after a meal break to find the email page's tab headed with "Problem Loading Page..." started to become routine. "School email server's down again? Oh well, check again in the morning." In a truly reliable system, that would be, "School email server's down?! That never happens!!!"

Actually, the latter quote is basically what I think when Gmail goes down. I haven't had an outage since early last year, and before that they were quite infrequent and quickly resolved. Lately, my school's system has been going down frequently (though not so much any more) and for long periods. Think several hours. It usually failed at night, when there were no techs around to fix it.

As far as I know, there's only one server powering the entire thing, front-end and back-end. If it croaks, nobody can do anything. (I actually never tried sending mail while the interface was down for fear it wouldn't get there.) Gmail has thousands of servers, and techs around 24/7 to fix problems. Believe it or not, I'm not really complaining, not this time. I understand that my school's tech team is only a few people, and that they can't be expected to keep a constant vigil over the servers.

I do have a suspicion, though. I started setting Firefox to auto-reload the page every two minutes using Tab Mix Plus just before the onslaught. I eventually wrote myself a Greasemonkey script (any of my classmates could find this useful, and I'm thinking about adding more features) to do the same thing, only automatically so it didn't have to be reset every time I closed and restarted the browser. It had the same two-minute interval, and the server crashes continued.

Eventually I just updated the script to reload every three minutes instead, and the outages seem to have abated. My guess is that I inadvertently either caused a mini-DoS attack on the server or tripped a rate-limiter that was temporarily blocking my IP address. I am more suspicious of the latter possibility, since it is unlikely that one request every 120 seconds would overwhelm a Web server.

If I'm right about the rate-limiter, let me just point out that Google doesn't limit Gmail requests. I have a ping going once a minute from Gmail Manager, a browser extension that checks my mail and pops up notifications. If it was the unlikely DoS alternative, I think it's just time to get a new server, or move some accounts off to another machine (if it's a shared server).

My point is that one server just doesn't cut it these days. Hardware failures and software crashes are quite common. If one server can't handle the load, add a backup. That's what I would do.

1Apr/080

Gmail April Fools’ 2008: "Custom Time"

So when my Internet connection decided to finally come back up this morning after a four-hour outage, I loaded Gmail to find a link reading "New! Gmail Custom Time" in my account. After reading the linked page, I instantly knew it was Google's 2008 April Fools' Day joke for Gmail.

First, take the heading: "Introducing Gmail Custom Time™: Be on time. Every time.*" (The asterisk refers to a note at the bottom of the page that "Every time" is used to loosely represent the number 10; see the page for more explanation.)

The instructions give it away even more:

Just click "Set custom time" from the Compose view. Any email you send to the past appears in the proper chronological order in your recipient's inbox. You can opt for it to show up read or unread by selecting the appropriate option.

I've messed with message times by changing my computer clock in the past, but that was back when I still used a desktop client. This kind of feature joke is what makes me love Google. Last year's Gmail Paper hoax was equally amusing.

While I'm at it, how about a look at the screenshot Google posted? It's definitely not present in my version of the application... (That was a sure-fire way to confirm the hoax, because the new feature links only appear after a complete roll-out.)

Another problem here is that the recipient might not use Gmail, in which case how does Google control the status of the email once it arrives in their inbox? Yeah, that's what I thought.

I have one more thing to gripe about: It makes my user bar into two lines! The link text is so long it causes an unintended line break:

I know it's my "low" (1024x768) screen resolution. I can just hear everyone saying, "Go widescreen already, dude!" Well, I have news for you: I don't want to use widescreen, and I don't have a choice anyway because I have to use the computer I have, which is on loan from my school.

Anyway, despite the little glitches, it's still a well-crafted joke, probably made in someone's 20% time. Whoever you are, thanks!

Google Blogoscoped has a big list of Google April Fools' Day jokes for 2008, though it includes things like the Google Docs Offline announcement, which I don't think was a joke. After all, Gmail was launched on April 1 and everyone thought Google was kidding. Despite appreciating the humor, I don't think I can trust anything I see today 100%... All this seemed to start a day early, actually, on March 31. April Fools' Day is now two days, apparently.

29Mar/082

Move to Gmail from an Offline Client?

Various methods for switching to Gmail and bringing along your old mail have been discussed to death in the blogosphere, I know. Gmail does turn four next week, after all (it was released to the public on April 1, 2004; April 1, 2008, is next week). Since its release, Gmail has added lots of features, including IMAP support.

Ordinarily I wouldn't bring up something that's already been done before (well, anything that was last posted about more than a week ago). However, the Official Gmail Blog posted a short set of tips for moving to Gmail, and I thought I'd sound off on the list. (Comments are turned off on that blog, and I need a post anyway. ;-)

So, despite the title ("Tips for importing old email to Gmail"), the only things we find out are that we should set up POP retrieval on all our old accounts and enable sending messages as those old addresses just in case. Nothing is mentioned about getting mail from email clients, which has been deleted from the POP server, into Gmail. And nothing is mentioned about getting mail out of e.g. Hotmail or Yahoo! Mail (which are, admittedly, pretty difficult as they don't support POP access anyway).

Various solutions for the desktop-client problem have been posted in the years since Gmail's launch, as I hinted earlier in this post. (I haven't seen any good solutions for Hotmail/Yahoo! Mail yet.) Some rely on automatic forwarding scripts, others on the new IMAP support (Zoli Erdos has a good write-up of the IMAP method, which I would like to try when I get the chance).

What irks me is the fact that none of these ingenious solutions for getting already downloaded mail into Gmail are mentioned in the Gmail Blog post. If you use a client like Outlook Express or Thunderbird (Mail.app, Outlook, Eudora... the list goes on), Google can import your stuff if you get a business-class Google Apps account, which supports email migration. But that would be $50 a year. (The migration API on which the migration tools are based is only available on Google Apps-based Gmail accounts, unfortunately.) Granted, the solutions that simply forward everything to your account and ruin all the headers probably aren't all that useful; but the IMAP-based methods would probably be quite useful. It's just a drag-and-drop from local mailbox to Gmail. Why didn't the post mention them?

I hope that tips for uploading email from offline clients get posted to the Gmail blog sometime in the future. Preferably in the next few months, but anytime in the next up to two years would be fine by me. It had better be before Gmail's tenth birthday, though.

Oh, and rest assured, I will try the IMAP import method as soon as I have the time. That will probably be around June, after school's done for the year. Cross your fingers for me in advance? (Thanks if you did! :-)

Update (04/01): Just got a comment from Zoli Erdos, who brought my attention to the text surrounding the link to his site. I cleaned that up; it didn't make much sense before. So this update is really just a short series of edits. I've marked my inline insertions up with <ins> tags for visibility. Thanks for bringing me back here, Zoli! :-)

25Mar/080

Financial Reports Waste Paper; Use the Internet

Financial reports are a colossal waste of paper. Well, perhaps that's not entirely true. I'm sure some people read every last character in those thick stacks of paper sent out by investment agencies at the end of the fiscal year. But most of us just shred them and put them in the recycling (or, unfortunately and probably more commonly, the trash).

What's in one of those things? Usually it's just a summary of all transactions conducted by the agency on your behalf since the last report, with a few statistics thrown in for good measure. Yes, it can be useful. No, it does not need to be mailed out to every agency customer, in triplicate (I kid you not; this does happen on occasion).

Before the invention of the Internet, such mailings made sense. There was simply no other good way of getting the documents. It was either paper mail or paper fax. Either way, you used paper.

Now, of course, we have the Internet, and that wonderful thing called email. Adobe made the PDF file format, and we should be using that, too. There's simply no good reason to use paper for these reports in this day and age.

Considering that each report averages around 20 or 30 pages, and that there will often be multiple reports mailed by multiple agencies, that translates into a lot of paper, especially if the amount is multiplied by the number of customers receiving those documents. As I said, we could definitely email PDFs instead of putting all these reams of paper in the mail. What if, just hypothetically, there was a better way? A better way even than email?

I think there is, and it's kind of making me eat my own words. What if all the reports were simply generated on-the-fly by a Web-based console? Each customer would get a login (always transmitted over SSL, of course, as with the rest of the site), which would get them into a reporting interface tied to their transactions. Undoubtedly, the transaction data is stored in a database. That would be an efficient way to store such uniform data. The site would simply tie into that database (or a replicated read-only copy, for another layer of hacker cracker safety).

In my mind, I envision the same sort of powerful reporting interface as those used by applications like Google Analytics. Date ranges, comparisons, graphs, charts... All would be quite welcome in a world of financial data. And the best part of such a system would be the near-obsolescence of paper reports. The dynamic charting and date-range selection capabilities of the Web application would surely prove more useful than fixed paper reports.

Of course, there would be Luddites intent upon keeping their paper-based reports. Hence "near-obsolescence" rather than just "obsolescence." There would have to be an option to receive paper reports, in recognition of the views held by the few people who would want them. But that option should be turned off by default. Anyone who wanted paper mailed to them would simply call the agency and say so. It could even be a question when new customers sign up. But again, the default would be "no." As far as I can tell, most people don't use the paper, so why waste it?

It's probably obvious that this is a half-baked idea. I haven't got any interface mock-ups, server-side code (say, PHP or Python), SQL, or anything else. All I have is an ideal, that paper-based reports be sent only -- and only -- to the people who want and use them.

16Feb/080

Gmail Task List Feature?

Garett Rogers posted something very strange this afternoon. It seems someone wrote in with a screenshot of a task list feature in Gmail and a (to me, rather dubious) explanation of how it got there. He thinks it's likely to be "similar to the 'Remember The Milk' addon" (he says RTM for Gmail uses Greasemonkey, which I don't believe is correct). The screenshot he posted, which I won't duplicate for fear of copyright infringement (see the original post), looks very, very similar to the RTM pane I have in my Gmail account right now, down to the icons and styling.

I'm excited if Google is going to add a new feature, but I'd rather it not be this one. Actually, let me re-state that. I'm excited if there's going to be a task list, but I hope Google has a stand-alone list as an option, and also offers support for RTM, Toodle (I think?), and some of the other more popular task management services. A list within Gmail doesn't do me much good, because I really like RTM. I wonder what's really up, though. Garett's post doesn't look too convincing to me.

Phooey. I got my hopes up for nothing. I actually read the Groups thread Garett linked to, and found that others had already come to the same conclusion I had tentatively in my head. That user somehow has installed the RTM extension and doesn't remember. Here I thought Google was doing something. Oh well, sounds like my suspicion of Garett's post was justified.

Here's what I think is going on. That user sounds very confused, because the task list and its associated tab within Gmail's settings keeps appearing and disappearing. One of two things could be happening: It could either be a hoax, deliberately written to get buzz going about something that's been around for ages; or that user could be going between Firefox (where RTM for Gmail works) and Internet Explorer (where it doesn't). Perhaps it's both, I don't know. But I'm pretty sure that it's just RTM for Gmail, and not a Google feature.

Update (02/17): Garett insists in a comment at Google Operating System that he posted a screenshot of RTM accompanying his post about a bona fide task list feature in Gmail. The saga continues... And it looks like I was wrong, actually.

4Feb/082

Chris Pirillo’s Thoughts on Bad Grammar: Same As Mine

As usual, I'm going to ask you to watch the video first before reading my comments:

There, all done? Good, now I can comment away!

This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy, too. I don't know if anyone notices, but I try to keep my English as perfect as I can here on my blog, in my email, on Wikipedia... The list of places where I write goes on -- and in each and every location, I try to use scholarly-sounding English that won't have me embarrassing my school, my parents, or (most importantly) myself.

Chris says he gets emails like that all the time. I can relate; I see loads upon loads of messages like that on Wikipedia, in online school discussion boards, and forums across the Internet. Fortunately, most of the people I correspond with via email and IM have a firm grasp of the English language, and only make mistakes when they're intentional (say they're ignoring the rules for the sake of typing speed). Only a very few people I know personally mutilate English.

So, I beg the world, please watch how you write. It drives geeks like me, Chris, my friend i80and, and all kinds of other people absolutely crazy to try and interpret sentences like, "r u srsly gnna get widnows vitsa? u cnat possiby b srs abt tht!"

That's my rant for the day, then.