> - different, more strict message structure and format replacing headers and parts (maybe some less verbose equivalent of XML)
Hard agree on that. Differences in header implementation is such a wide-spread problem with any kind of message forwarding program design, whether it's reverse HTTP proxies or chains of email middleware.
> - signature as a separate part of the message that is never quoted (and more standard way to identify and attribute quotations in the text)
I think this will inevitably lead to people accidentally mailing each other information they never intended to forward. I do agree that quotes and replies need better standardisation, but I don't think this is the solution.
> - legal information as a separate part of the message (imprint, privacy policy, confidentiality and copyright notices etc)
I can't say I see the need for this. Just a few links at the bottom are enough.
> - privacy controls as part of the message (unsubscribe, GDPR disclosure/removal etc)
There's already a standard unsubscribe header (https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2369.txt has List-Unsubscribe, for instance). In my experience, it's only used by companies that have visible and simple opt-out links.
In a new protocol, the remote side will probably just ignore the unsubscribe request.
> - replace HTML with Unicode-based formatting that is equivalent of Markdown subset and is email-specific, to avoid any attempts to reuse renderers built for other purposes
This would prevent any company doing marketing from using this standard. That also means sign-ups won't be supported, which will work against any adoption.
People who want this can use text/plain in email already. You can even read most HTML email by telling your email client to view text/plain instead of text/html.
> I think this will inevitably lead to people accidentally mailing each other information they never intended to forward.
Why? A conforming client will just render the signature below the message as well as the other information (e.g. legal one).
> I can't say I see the need for this
Have you seen corporate email signatures in Germany? It’s basically the demonstration of the lack of sense and lack of taste of some exec, often being more than a half of the message. People do need to be constrained here and relieved from signature design duty.
> In a new protocol, the remote side will probably just ignore the unsubscribe request.
Unless the standard will require digitally signed receipt in absence of which reputation of sender will suffer.
> This would prevent any company doing marketing from using this standard.
Not really. They will have more constraints for the design, but embedding vector graphics should be possible, just with some restrictions. There exist brilliant marketing emails with minimal formatting.
> Why? A conforming client will just render the signature below the message as well as the other information (e.g. legal one).
Because in all other messaging platforms, content is either shown right above or right below where the user types. Attempts to forward a single paragraph will forward an entire email.
> Have you seen corporate email signatures in Germany? It’s basically the demonstration of the lack of sense and lack of taste of some exec, often being more than a half of the message. People do need to be constrained here and relieved from signature design duty.
That's a German problem, not a protocol problem. You can't fix social problems with technology.
> Unless the standard will require digitally signed receipt in absence of which reputation of sender will suffer.
Large mail providers already track this stuff and it doesn't help. Most of the spam I receive falls squarely in the category of "anyone with a spam filter will catch these".
I also don't think any kind of decentralised reputation system will work, because spammers will try to poison anything small mail servers can contribute to. We'd end up with the same IP reputation list system we currently have.
> Not really. They will have more constraints for the design, but embedding vector graphics should be possible, just with some restrictions. There exist brilliant marketing emails with minimal formatting.
So you're saying the Germans will have vector graphics email signatures?
I agree that a lot of these points could've made email better, but only if they were applied three or four decades ago. Nobody is going to switch to email without at least the abilities they currently have.
Personally, I like the idea behind Delta Chat, using email as no more than a transport for instant messages. You get the benefits of legacy email, with practical messaging shaped like modern instant messaging.
> Because in all other messaging platforms, content is either shown right above or right below where the user types. Attempts to forward a single paragraph will forward an entire email.
Why having knowledge of the protocol any UX designer would design the interface of the client so that such mistakes could be possible? It certainly can be solved by interface.
>That's a German problem, not a protocol problem. You can't fix social problems with technology.
It is not a social problem. Those ugly signatures exist because there’s legal requirement to include imprint in business mail without adequate support by protocol. It belongs to message metadata, not to message body (and any well-designed system considering this requirement would do it as metadata btw).
> I also don't think any kind of decentralised reputation system will work
It’s a matter of a separate discussion, but here it’s not about generic reputation system, but the one where cryptographic proof of trustworthiness is possible. It may work and it doesn’t have to rely on IP address.
Hard agree on that. Differences in header implementation is such a wide-spread problem with any kind of message forwarding program design, whether it's reverse HTTP proxies or chains of email middleware.
> - signature as a separate part of the message that is never quoted (and more standard way to identify and attribute quotations in the text)
I think this will inevitably lead to people accidentally mailing each other information they never intended to forward. I do agree that quotes and replies need better standardisation, but I don't think this is the solution.
> - legal information as a separate part of the message (imprint, privacy policy, confidentiality and copyright notices etc)
I can't say I see the need for this. Just a few links at the bottom are enough.
> - privacy controls as part of the message (unsubscribe, GDPR disclosure/removal etc)
There's already a standard unsubscribe header (https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2369.txt has List-Unsubscribe, for instance). In my experience, it's only used by companies that have visible and simple opt-out links.
In a new protocol, the remote side will probably just ignore the unsubscribe request.
> - replace HTML with Unicode-based formatting that is equivalent of Markdown subset and is email-specific, to avoid any attempts to reuse renderers built for other purposes
This would prevent any company doing marketing from using this standard. That also means sign-ups won't be supported, which will work against any adoption.
People who want this can use text/plain in email already. You can even read most HTML email by telling your email client to view text/plain instead of text/html.