Susimail without I2P Java

[echelon]

Responsible for the development and organization of SusiMail and the I2P email system are "idk" and "postman". So these two are the right contact persons. Therefore this "official" request, if a standalone version of SusiMail is planned and when to expect it, was exactly the right way.

Wrong.
Susimail is just a webmailer in the I2P java pacakge. Any other (web)mailer does work, as long as they support pop3 and/or imap to localhost.
Beside, the mail system itself is not a part of I2P neither of I2P servers. It's run by private persons and not by he I2P dev team.
Same with lots of other services inside I2P.

The dev team only do run the website and the git server. Even this forum is not run by I2P.

echelon

[raccoondad]

My current setup used to be using claws-mail/mutt and routing it through localhost,

Really the only reason I want to use Susimail is because it was a better experience than what I had with my other mail clients

[lgillis]

Responsible for the development and organization of SusiMail and the I2P email system are "idk" and "postman". So these two are the right contact persons. Therefore this "official" request, if a standalone version of SusiMail is planned and when to expect it, was exactly the right way.

Wrong.
Susimail is just a webmailer in the I2P java pacakge. Any other (web)mailer does work, as long as they support pop3 and/or imap to localhost.
Beside, the mail system itself is not a part of I2P neither of I2P servers. It's run by private persons and not by he I2P dev team.
Same with lots of other services inside I2P.

The dev team only do run the website and the git server. Even this forum is not run by I2P.

echelon

For a good reason I have not added the references on which I base myself, because people here like to refer to something of which they want to believe that it is true. The part branded by echelon as allegedly "wrong" does not hit those who quote the I2P homepage "The I2P Software (I2P) / What is included" but those who fill the homepage with facts - if echelon is right.

Also I spoke expressly of the "responsibility for the organization and development". Nevertheless the before said is also valid for the presented assumption, SusiMail and the I2P mail system would be two pairs of shoes. To argue, the mailsystem, would be operated by "private persons", is a smoke candle. Their operators are listed on the I2P homepage next to the other "private persons" who contribute to the development.

At this point I will not go further into whether websites and forums sponsored by the I2P treasury can be considered as not belonging to I2P, or whether they have to be seen as an official part of the whole. Because this is about a piece of software, SusiMail, which in my opinion should have been put into its own web GUI years ago to be used autonomously.

[raccoondad]

At this point I will not go further into whether websites and forums sponsored by the I2P treasury can be considered as not belonging to I2P, or whether they have to be seen as an official part of the whole. Because this is about a piece of software, SusiMail, which in my opinion should have been put into its own web GUI years ago to be used autonomously.

I agree with the making a standalone part, but I think by "apart of I2P" echelon is referring to the fact that the mail service is just a regular mail server that just uses i2p as a way to route mail, rather than being a part of the I2P protocol/network

It would be confusing to associate both community created services (like this forum) and the actual software and protocols that make up the network as "apart of I2P"

[lgillis]

Dear participants, it is only natural that some of you now want to defend their toy. But I refer to the I2P homepage, to what is written there. I even linked to it! So if you talk about facts, then you should also back them up with facts. By the way, I had also mentioned that with the faith, right in the first sentence, which also fell under the table when quoting. For my sake, you may like to pick out only the parts that fit you to the concept, but it also read people who see through this and to whom I turn primarily.

[echelon]

HI

so linking on a website make the tool official part of the legal asset I2P ?
Thats not true, neither for I2P nor for Microsoft or any other legal entity.
If you speak about the "eco system" I2P, yeah, it is all part of the I2P ecosystem.
But in terms of legal entitiy, I2P does NOT exist, neither has any property or assets.
In this, nothing can be bound legal to I2P, neither a website nor funding nor any service.

And in following this: the I2P mail system (mail server, mail gateways, mail relays,...) is NOT run by any I2P devs nor by the I2P legal entity (which does not exist). And in this, it is run by individual people loose associated with I2P.
It is a red herring to make the I2P team accountable for any service several private people do run inside of I2P.

For a better understanding:
I2P dev team does work on the I2P Java package, including 3rd party tools like SusiMail, do fill the Git server and provide content to the website.
But it does not run the email server, the email relays or the email gateways. So the Email system is not run by the I2P dev team and could be gone at any time, if the people running those servers decide to withdraw their own funded service. The I2P dev team cannot do anything against this, except setting up a new one, but thats not the goal of the I2P dev team. It is not a fundamental service to run the I2P router. It is nice and helpful, but not really needed.

[echelon]

For a good reason I have not added the references on which I base myself, because people here like to refer to something of which they want to believe that it is true. The part branded by echelon as allegedly "wrong" does not hit those who quote the I2P homepage "The I2P Software (I2P) / What is included" but those who fill the homepage with facts - if echelon is right.

Also I spoke expressly of the "responsibility for the organization and development". Nevertheless the before said is also valid for the presented assumption, SusiMail and the I2P mail system would be two pairs of shoes. To argue, the mailsystem, would be operated by "private persons", is a smoke candle. Their operators are listed on the I2P homepage next to the other "private persons" who contribute to the development.

At this point I will not go further into whether websites and forums sponsored by the I2P treasury can be considered as not belonging to I2P, or whether they have to be seen as an official part of the whole. Because this is about a piece of software, SusiMail, which in my opinion should have been put into its own web GUI years ago to be used autonomously.

Ok, to be picky as you noted the webpage: even there it is noted: Postmans Email Service. Not I2P Email Service. Postman in this is a private person, not the I2P dev team néither I2P.

Also IP is no organization, as it simply does not exist legalwise. It is just a group of people providing code and services to the people, and to be more precise the I2P dev team provide the code and the I2P router. Also it supports the (external provided) code of SusiMail.

And as I2P does not exist legalwise, it does not have any treasury which may or may not sponsor any service, forums, or website. And in this, those do not belong to I2P, but are dedicated to the I2P project.

others may see it different, but thats the legal view/by law on this. There is no legal entity and in this, everything is run by private individuals, which may call themself I2P group/dev team.

[lgillis]

I think that was an interesting digression into legal discovery and ownership of echelon. The property question cannot be explained often enough, after all, the result goes far beyond the libertarian philosophy of an Ayn Rand. Rand's radical liberalism still had at least basic features of the state and constitution to protect its citizens in its program. Nevertheless, it is always sad to see how hopes and wishes for democracy and participation are shattered by reality. Particularly socially minded participants suffer the disappointment of learning that, despite the release of their private network, they only have the say which the respective owners may grant them and can terminate at any time, but who benefit, indeed exist, from precisely this bandwidth which anonymizes them. In fairness, one could now demand that owners disclose their property and their significant holdings in other people's property. In this way, everyone could decide freely and would know in advance "under which roof he lives" or where and to what extent his own opinion can be expressed. But as far as I know, these are incompatible utopias with actual conditions, and the former German chancellor Schmidt has already said that anyone with visions should see a doctor. Or how do you see it, would you want to make a start and disclose your holdings? By the way and also only because you have formulated this so clearly - and I hope here no misunderstandings come up by the translation into English - it should be better understandable for the doubters now that one cannot blame you like every other treasurer any incidents with the I2P cash.