Re: ICQ Replacement?

[Shawn Leas <sleas ixion honeywell com>]

On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, Ka-shu Wong wrote:

> Each user will have an address in the form of username@server.address ,
> where server.address is the DNS address of their 'home' server.  Probably
> using the @ to separate the username and the address isnt a good idea,
> since it could be confused with email address, but that can be worked out
> later... Having a home server solves the problem of having a single 
> central server that can break down easily.  It also allows the possibility
> that ISPs can run the servers as a service for their users, in much the
> same way that ISPs provide email addresses for their customers.

So where is the root service?  To have the functionality of ICQ, things
will have to take on a real DNS/IRC sort of topology, because the location
of the user [as far as server goes] should be irrelevant.

> The status of a user is determined by querying their home server.
> Messages can also be delivered in much the same way, being relayed to the
> recipients' home servers from where the message is retrieved.

Maybe I just didn't read that right...  Did I?

> The server also maintains a 'list' of people that the user has authorised
> to be on his contact list, and only responds to queries from the
> authorised users.  This also allows for the possibility of revoking
> someone's authorisation, which is useful sometimes.

This is sounding like an extended 'talk and finger' client.  That is, if I
read it right.

> Anyway, thanks for reading this far, and if you have any ideas, please
> reply. And of course there will be a GNOME-aware client... :)

No prob, I have NO life.

-Shawn
<=========== America Held Hostage ===========>
   Day 2064 for the poor and the middle class. 
   Day 2083 for the rich and the dead.
   858 days remaining in the Raw Deal.
<============================================>