maidmaidmaid or just maid
ah wait… i got mail 
2 Likes
I don’t know what the goals with SAFE Mail are next to serving as a dev-tutorial (which is already very cool). But here’s an idea:
- The SAFE Beaker Browser should have some sort of App-page which shows several web-apps including SAFE Mail.
- The SAFE Mail app should use the MPID (you public ID on SAFE) as the default username to not confuse people with several usernames. Of course people could add more names as they like, but 1 ID for SAFE should be the default for a website, the messenger, mail and you wallet.
Just my 2 cents
2 Likes
Currenty, each APP creates/manages their own ID. But this becomes complicated when several APPS have a different ID per launcher login.
I think it would be more “user friendly” to create 1 ID from the Launcher and allow the APPS to GET that ID. If we do it that way, the APPS no longer need to create and manage their ID’s, they only use the ID associated with your Launcher Login.
Now it becomes very easy to keep track of what ID you are using because you have to go through the login process to change your ID.
Here’s an Example
- Start Launcher and Create Account… and then choose your ID.
- Start any APP which GETS the ID during the “allow/deny” stage. That is the ID they use for: email, website, msg, whatever.
- If you want to change your ID, just login with a different account.
I think this very easy to understand compared to creating and managing ID’s with each APP.
2 Likes
Surely that’s been suggested before… and I vaguely recall the obviously response then was that assumes users will want to use one ID at a time. More likely that they will want one ID per application. It seems right that the application creates and manages the ID.
And so easy for so many safesites to track your ID across sites & APPs, even if for only a day. But many leave their computers on so it could be a month.
Isn’t that what we are trying to avoid.
It is not like there is an ID for browsing. Btw it doesn’t help at all to identify your location or real identity.
1 Like
The APP would know this ID and so would a safesite through JS. From this singular ID they could start constructing a profile. Now if the PC is on for a month this could become very useful, especially if one of those safesites/APPs was to purchase physical goods delivered to you at your address.
Whereas if the APP/safesite had its own ID then this cannot happen as the only ID of yours it gets is the one you give it and you are at liberty to generate a new one for each and every APP/safesite.
1 Like
Wait I got to check again
I had that once too… restarting laucher then just worked ok; so, perhaps is worth noting.
Not connecting for me either. Win 10 / version 0.9.0 - Alpha works OK though
1 Like
0.9.0 but Mint… so identical for these purposes. Only had it once though and not obviously repeatable. I didn’t wait too long with it either, so I don’t know if it wouldn’t have tried again and connected ok. Compounded with that I’ve had ISP glitching I doubt there’s anything there to worry about, unless a lot of other instances. I expect not given that it’s close to the Alpha in type.
I’ve had “Could not connect to the SAFE Network” all day and no connection problem with my isp, so I’m puzzled. 
0.8.0 is working though, so at least a small comfort.
1 Like
hmm… I got the same 
TRACE 15:51:35.153894518 [safe_core::ffi::session session.rs:153] FFI create unregistered client.
TRACE 15:51:35.153948055 [safe_core::core::client mod.rs:79] Creating unregistered client.
TRACE 15:51:36.154106967 [safe_core::core::client mod.rs:88] Waiting to get connected to the Network...
DEBUG 15:51:37.353304390 [routing::core core.rs:1088] Disconnected(6351ce..) Failed to bootstrap.
TRACE 15:51:37.353637210 [safe_core::core::client::message_queue message_queue.rs:150] EventReceiverThread received: Event::Terminate
INFO 15:51:37.353650767 [safe_core::core::client::message_queue message_queue.rs:171] Received a Terminate event. Informing 1 observers.
WARN 15:51:37.353677253 [safe_core::core::client mod.rs:92] Could not connect to the Network. Unexpected: Disconnected
INFO 15:51:37.355141459 [safe_core::ffi::session session.rs:155]
FFI cross-boundary error propagation:
--------------------------------------------------
| **ERRNO: -15** FfiError::CoreError -> Operation aborted - CoreError::OperationAborted
--------------------------------------------------
Anyone know if the vaults will soon already be runned by people instead of maidsafe ?
1 Like
No, there’s no date or time for that. The devs said they know enough about the bugs that show up when people use Vaults from home. Not really a need to test even more with that. They’re implementing Disjoint Groups at the moment. That’s quite a big update to routing. So I guess we’ll have to wait until that’s tested on droplets.
2 Likes
If you are wondering what is currently at the design stage, take a look at the threads of the dev forum: https://forum.safedev.org/
There is some great and informed debates there, even if some of it is hard to understand.
3 Likes
Safenet is currently still completely theoretical. Before we see an actual implementation that works in the wild we should think of it as a next-gen cloud storage architecture. It works, as long as your nodes are managed by a trusted entity.
Safenet is currently still completely theoretical. Before we see an actual implementation that works in the wild we should think of it as a next-gen cloud storage architecture. It works, as long as your nodes are managed by a trusted entity.
Then the alpha could of been called testnet 8 and 9, cause as long as the vault are runned by droplets the maidsafe network would never be seen as decentralized and free.