summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorLars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi>2020-03-28 11:17:45 +0200
committerLars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi>2020-03-28 11:17:45 +0200
commitbb32a1a2ff3973b773ce2f1a6de9ee1fd5c4a118 (patch)
tree4f52e8ab79e1a7a4804e39184987a2d2108e9992
parent265ae1431c54802e40b2d21f26481f269355465b (diff)
downloadideas-bb32a1a2ff3973b773ce2f1a6de9ee1fd5c4a118.tar.gz
Fix: typos
-rw-r--r--email2-v2-draft.md18
1 files changed, 9 insertions, 9 deletions
diff --git a/email2-v2-draft.md b/email2-v2-draft.md
index e4f2c68..01e58d3 100644
--- a/email2-v2-draft.md
+++ b/email2-v2-draft.md
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ valuable and would like a new system to retain them.
little money.
* Standardised: there are many implementations and they're mostly
- interoperable.
+ inter-operable.
* Supports off-line use. Not everyone can, or wants to, be online all
the time.
@@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ Problems with the existing email system
* Attachments fill disks. Email is commonly used to share files,
because it's easy and ubiquitous, even if it's not very good at it.
There are services that make this better, but they are mostly
- proprietary, and require extra effort, are no ubiquituous, and people
+ proprietary, and require extra effort, are no ubiquitous, and people
mostly don't use them routinely.
* There is no good support for group discussions. Massive dumps of
@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ Problems with the existing email system
not be great for having discussions among large groups of people.
They're better at sending out announcements and newsletters.
- - Email threads work, technically, but tend to result in suprisingly
+ - Email threads work, technically, but tend to result in surprisingly
little communication happening, in the general case. People mix
topics in threads, split the same topic in new threads, and
generally don't use threads as intended. This is not the fault of
@@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ The spam problem can be stated as follows:
The scam problem can be stated as follows:
> Anyone can send email that looks like it comes from someone else, at
-> least sufficiently well that an unobservant reciepient is fooled. This
+> least sufficiently well that an unobservant recipient is fooled. This
> can be used to con the recipient to click a link in the email that
> leads to a fake web shop, for example, or a site that attacks the
> recipient with malware.
@@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ Overview of solution
* Every email user has one or more identities, represented by
cryptographic keys.
-* All email is digitally signed using the cryptograhpic keys.
+* All email is digitally signed using the cryptographic keys.
* No email is delivered unless it carries a digital stamp issued by the
recipient, or someone authorized to issue one on behalf of the
@@ -269,7 +269,7 @@ however, allows more features:
* digital stamps may be indefinitely usable, or single-use: you might
give someone new a stamp they can use only once, and if you don't give
- them another, longer-lived stamp, you won't get furhter email from
+ them another, longer-lived stamp, you won't get further email from
them
- for example, I might order a mug from an online shop and give them
@@ -285,11 +285,11 @@ As an extra twist, digital stamps may also be an authorization to
someone else to issue stamps on your behalf. Rather than the stamp
allowing them to send you an email, it lets them create a stamp that
lets a third party send you an email. Your email software can put any
-and all the constrints it puts on stamps you issue directly on the
+and all the constraints it puts on stamps you issue directly on the
delegation.
For example, if you and Alfred have a mutual friend, Bruce, you can give
-Bruce a stamp that authorizeds Bruce to issue single-use stamps to other
+Bruce a stamp that authorizes Bruce to issue single-use stamps to other
identities. If Bruce thinks you and Alfred should know each other, he
can issue Alfred a stamp that lets Alfred send you a single email. If
you like Alfred, you can issue him further stamps.
@@ -309,7 +309,7 @@ costly enough that it makes large-scale spamming infeasible. (See
Email servers could also sell stamps for real money. Even at trivial
costs, such as one US cent, this would be too costly for spammers.
-I emphasize that the recipient decides what stamps are valid. Their mail
+I emphasise that the recipient decides what stamps are valid. Their mail
server does not have to issue stamps to anyone who asks, if the
recipient doesn't want email from strangers.