Modern email can be built from borrowed parts
en.andros.dev
en.andros.dev
Modern email already depends on HTTP, with protocols like MTA-STS (https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8461/) using HTTPS/TLS to improve transit encryption, or Web Key Directory (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-koch-openpgp-webkey-s...) which uses HTTP for public key distribution. Personally I think these incremental improvements of SMTP are more promising than replacements, but we deserve better email however we can build it.
The stories have discouraged my from spending my time on it though.
I blacklisted pretty much all of africa and arabic nations and china on the IP level, ( ensure you get the bgp routed datacenters in those nations too) and not only did i get less spam, but less automated bot attacks on my webserver.
The reason people talk about the blacklist is because its just so damn effective.
However, most of time, it's not that providers are blacklisting because "Ha ha ha, screw the little guy" but more "Yea, they are hosting on IP blocks with terrible reputation and spammers are absolute liars. I refuse to trust whatever they say, period."
If you have your own /24 or greater, you can become email provider. It's also just such a low margin business, it's not worth small businesses disrupting it.
NewEmailServers are able to send and receive messages using either the Email or the NewEmail protocol.
Before sending a message, the NewEmailServer checks a directory (similar to DNS) to see if any of the recipients are on another NewEmailServer. If so, the message is sent to those recipients via NewEmail. Others get it by Email.
Completely backward compatible. Once google/microsoft shift to NewEmail, the rest will follow quickly except some legacy servers. All that is needed is a standards body.
When dealing with any kind of network effect and existing user behavior, though, especially one as ingrained as email, I would highly recommend being judicious about using the word "just," given that these are mutually-reinforcing effects. Imagining a solution is a world away from implementing one.
Still, I think you're on the right track: create a new protocol on top of an old one, use the same input methods and user behaviors, call attention to when someone is not using it (e.g., green bubbles), and make it extremely easy for existing services to migrate to use it (i.e., the standard/standards body, notably NOT what Apple has done). One part that's missing here is some pressure to make this happen: positive pressure (economic, product sense, persuasion) or negative (economic, social, regulatory).
We shouldn't be discussing the best ways to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, because EEE and its consequences have been a disaster for internet openness, and we don't want to be increasing its spread.
Let's start with grouping messages into conversations reliably. Whatever black magic they are currently using is almost there, but has it's flaws.
I like this.
Question: can this e-mail specification/implementation also replace direct-messaging protocols (like WhatsApp)?
Honestly, I'd want this as a default. I wonder if a mailserver can be configure like this. Doesn't sound too hard, does it?
Greylisting is not perfect, not even close, but it allows servers to reject huge amounts of garbage mail while allowing new mail from unexpected parties without user intervention.
What parent wants is also possible and I remember people doing it as far back as the early 2000s. You would basically manually whitelist an email or have them bypass the list (once or always) with something like a key word or token sort of like a captcha which can be shared off band.
https://blog.nawaz.org/posts/2018/Sep/solving-my-email-probl...
1. "The recipient will not get this message until you authenticate yourself as a legitimate sender at this URL [...]" - resulted in people never getting mail from no-reply addresses they cared about (banks, e-com, etc.)
2. "This sender has sent you an email, with this subject and this first paragraph. Click here to whitelist, here to blacklist" - created a lot of churn on first setup that users didn't like as a UX
Baking it into the protocol - even now in SMTP and IMAP land - is doable, but would be resisted by email providers who, for example, make their money selling data to marketing agencies. Like, you know, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo...
I've seen other approaches proposed - even at IETF level - over the years, including digital postage stamps (sender pays to send email, your server gets paid, and may reject non-stamped/paying email), but it's the usual network effect: until it becomes widely supported it won't "stick". The stuff that has been adopted has basically been stuff that Google likes, period.
For context, I'm the author of Haraka, a popular open source SMTP server.
SMTP servers don't necessarily store anything. They have two responsibilities: Receiving and delivering email. What they do with the emails they receive is up to the configuration.
Deltachat
And I do not want an infinite thread conversation. I want to be able to split off - and perhaps archive and export - different conversations by topic.
I recently had to some legal things, which included forwarding copies of a certain conversation to a lawyer. This turns out to be unreasonably difficult because email clients quote previous conversations. You want a clean thread of comment and reply about a specific topic. You don't get that.
You do get it on chat services, but there's no option there to create sub-conversations.
If I was redesigning email I would think long and hard about different use cases and workflows and start with an RFC. Protocols are far downstream of that.
It's called threads - even Matrix has these
I feel like every one of these suggested changes to email comes with a functionally equivalent parody magic trick.
For this one, a magician has two stacks of cards: a tall stack of "spam" cards, and a small stack of "inbox" cards.
The magician moves the stacks apart to make a spot for a new "request" stack.
To start the stack, they pick up five "request" cards from the inbox stack with one hand while subtly pushing the entire stack of "spam" cards with the other hand to spot they made for the "request" stack.
They then pass the five cards they were holding behind their back, revealing them with the opposite hand and finally shuffling them into the now tall stack of "request" cards.
Ta da!
> If I was redesigning email I would think long and hard about different use cases and workflows and start with an RFC.
A magician sweeps 17 sloppy stacks of cards off the table. They then show how the first 15 cards they pick up can more easily be arranged in only three stacks. Voila! Everybody claps.
While the audience members put money in the hat, the pedants stick around and watch the magician pick up the rest of the cards and end up with 18 sloppy stacks by the time the audience for the next show arrives.
Edit: clarification
Edit 2: I forgot this part: "Protocols are far downstream of that." So imagine 8 tiny tables below the main one which somehow end up with more than 52 cards in each of their 17 sloppy stacks.
Surely only if you configure them that way. At least I can turn that off in my email client, Thunderbird.
Nina xx
Keep in mind that many people around the world already use this solution.
In my case, I give senders a mechanism to go into my inbox without my explicit approval. The server sends them an email with a URL. They follow the instructions, and their email gets whitelisted.
https://blog.nawaz.org/posts/2018/Sep/solving-my-email-probl...
at one point Gmail had a service for this - if I remember well - but google being google - I guess it was just a promotion project for someone.
https://blog.nawaz.org/posts/2018/Sep/solving-my-email-probl...
(Not answering your question, but referring to the approach).
They've since changed the design so it uses its own protocol and servers instead of email.
It reminds me of a previous life, at a previous time, when everybody reinvented the content management system based on slightly different approaches, because they thought existing CMSs were too big. It starts with serving pages, then you want multiple templates, then you want accessibility, then you want to authenticate with LDAP, then you want to use the LDAP groups as your groups, and then you need to tie groups to roles, because groups mean one thing to the org, and roles mean another just to the CMS, then you realize a relational database isn't that good a match, then you realize it would be convenient to attach some logic, and a document database is no longer a great idea, then you need multiple datastores for content, then you need new workflows on top, then...
The devil is in the corner cases. They have been solved in different ways, by different parties, for decades, not always documented ("because it was just a simple thing, that once, and we fixed it"). Unless you've been there, you are doomed to make the same mistakes, and nobody was everywhere to avoid all mistakes.
Why not dedicate an effort to migrate all the COBOL code currently running almost every banking transaction? That should be easy ;-)
email is one of those technologies that "just works" but so many people seem to think it needs to be "fixed". it's generally very reliable and so people should just accept that and be grateful. It could be worse - it could be enshittified like so much other technology.
It's only really "very reliable" if you use Google or Microsoft for email, since they are the arbitrator of modern email.
We all deserve better, even self-hosted IMAP servers
I've ... seen a lot of poorly-considered proposals to fix it.
The fact that email has one hell of a lot of lock-in does not mean that it's not-broken. Just that it happens to be in one hell of a local optimum from which reaching any preferable state has a lot of hill-climbing to do.
Much in the way that evolution is not teleological, and cannot identify some desired state it wishes to evolve toward, but must proceed, by stepwise incremental increases in fitness to another state, so it is with protocols and standards.
That's not to say that SMTP + fiddly bits doesn't solve some problems, occasionally elegantly. But the leap from there to "it's not as broken" is ... rather large.
I've read TFA and am going through comments to this thread. There are some ideas I like, some I question. I'd suggest that this proposal seems better though through than many others I've seen.
Interesting take re putting a cost on spam. Perhaps another take would be functionally implementing introductions.
> First-contact consent: an unknown sender doesn't get into the mailbox; they land in a "requests" box with their first message visible (like Signal's message requests). You accept, and the thread opens forever. A stranger can knock on your door, which is the essential property of mail, but they can't fill up your living room.
Unfortunately, this will only move the problem, and only reduce it in the case when all outside communication is ignored.
Email clients already highlight/filter people in your contacts
And poof, we've poorly remembered Web of Trust from 20 years ago!
Overall I do love the idea of HTMP and if we could get it to easily fall back to standard old bad email, I think it could start as a niche and then upgrade towards HTMP over time as more clients adopted support for it.
You don't want to embed the entire email in JSON. Too many parsers past, present, and future tend to want to decode the entire JSON document into memory before doing anything else, and so you'd be forcing entire email documents to be held in memory at scale, which causes you major problems. I'd recommend something more like either a JSON header that defines what parts are in the email, followed by a normal MIME document, which is perfectly normal in HTTP with other things that use the format as well, or having the top level continue to be a MIME document and specify that the first part must be a JSON document containing the headers. JSON replacing the headers is generally something that would be a good idea, though.
That improves the ability of more language environments to be able to handle the email as a stream or in chunks with "normal" libraries and practices. MIME parsers in languages that tend to favor pulling everything into RAM as a string are still more likely to have been forced to face this issue already.
Why? Even if your system loads emails into memory a whole email at a time, that doesn't imply that it will load large numbers of emails simultaneously. The kind of processing that can be done by stream-processing large numbers of emails in parallel seems rather limited to me.
> I'd recommend something more like either a JSON header that defines what parts are in the email, followed by a normal MIME document, which is perfectly normal in HTTP with other things that use the format as well, or having the top level continue to be a MIME document and specify that the first part must be a JSON document containing the headers. JSON replacing the headers is generally something that would be a good idea, though.
If we're specifically talking about being able to short-circuit after headers, then why not a JSON header followed by JSON representation of the body?
When thinking about a standard like this, thinking about "your" system is a fatal error. You have to think about all the systems. And, yes, there are systems out there in the world that load large numbers of emails simultaneously. Obviously. Many of them. Not only that, if a new standard can't capture some of those, it's going to be a worthless niche standard forever because those are precisely the nodes that you need to get to support the new standard.
"If we're specifically talking about being able to short-circuit after headers, then why not a JSON header followed by JSON representation of the body?"
Just because a JSON representation of the body is pretty worthless. MIME is an extremely well-known standard, already used in HTTP contexts, and it will be more efficient than JSON string encoding at a fairly small transition size.
As a first step I would focus on something like broad S/MIME support. Unfortunately I suspect that the biggest email providers are disincentivized from doing this as it would disrupt their business models.
You can stop there, I've heard enough. Not everything is hypertext.
>The goal is not to replace the current mail system, heaven forbid!, but to learn, have fun and discover current technologies to swap out every element: sending, receiving, gateway, keys, and so on.
It's all for fun.
Sending email should not be free. It should be really, really cheap to send an email to one person (like a fraction of a fraction of a cent), but get exponentially more expensive the more you send.
People shouldn't be able to send emails to you without your prior approval (which you can revoke at an instant).
The recipient should be able to charge a tack-on fee for having email sent to him. I should be able to charge annoying people a lot to send to me, and charge my friends almost nothing. People who send annoying stuff to me should pay more to get my attention.
All of a sudden, forwarding that stupid article without thinking about the content (or even reading the article they're sending) will be second guessed. Save the money (and time), by sending only worthwhile stuff that you penned.
this sounds terrible... i've gotten so many useful random emails from strangers over the years.
Yes, many people go through that hoop!
I can still see their emails if they don't. They site in a Quarantine folder. I used to look at it frequently to catch the occasional straggler, but I rarely do that now. I've set up an LLM to go through all my quarantined emails in the last N days, and send me an email on which of the quarantined emails probably should be viewed.
I'm OK missing out on a (very rare) good email if it means I don't have to deal with crap mass mails. And let me tell you: Life is great when you don't deal with mass mails.
i handle the overload a different way... i age everything out of my inbox one day at a time, each gets a label showing the remaining days; they start at 7 and count down. that way i only ever have 7 days of email to look at. it also makes it clear who the big offenders are... if 10% of the emails are some new marketing thing it's easy to see and unsubscribe. i do hate that there's still so much manual work involved though, i would love if marketers had to pay.
I built my system because I tired of finding ways to unsubscribe.
Now I can subscribe without abandon and never worry about any of those emails coming into my inbox.
1. Someone puts me on a list and I have to do the work to get off.
2. They work to get me on their list, and I do virtually no work to get off the list.
I went with 2.
I have a better idea; split the problem into two. First, require all messages to include an `Automated: 0|1` header; eventually downranking / banning providers that don't include it, like we now do with DKIM, SPF, DMARC and such.
For messages with `Automated: 1`, require informed consent, mediated and verified through the recipient's provider.
It's impractical to require pre-approvals on every message, because many people genuinely want human-to-human contact from semi-strangers. On the other hand, requiring consent without verification is ineffective, because it is too easy to pretend consent. This design splits the spam problem into two much more tractable su-problems, detecting lying senders that mark automated messages as non-automated (easy with modern AI + basic statistical analysis), and verifying consent for honest automated senders (just requires a protocol).
Well, one can dream :-)
Micropayments may be impractical, but email as it is currently used is also impractical for personal use cases. Outside of the tech world, how many people do you know how primarily communicate via email?
Most have switched to texting, or to closed systems (WhatsApp, etc). Some of these closed systems make it easy for you to block others, and also can tightly control spam.
> First, require all messages to include an `Automated: 0|1` header; eventually downranking / banning providers that don't include it
How do you handle bad actors who set it to 0?
> It's impractical to require pre-approvals on every message, because many people genuinely want human-to-human contact from semi-strangers.
You pre-approve the person, not the message. Once approved, no further approvals are needed.
And human-to-human contact, for me, means more or less 1:1 (or at most 5:1). If a semistranger wants to talk to me, by all means, I'll approve him. What's the concern?
> On the other hand, requiring consent without verification is ineffective, because it is too easy to pretend consent.
Right now I do it by whitelisting the email address. Obviously, it's fragile. In practice, it's never a problem. The only failures are when I get spam with a From address that is mine. No company ever impersonates a friend's email address to get to me.
(Not saying your solution is unworkable, but would need more details).
It's better than nothing (much better than nothing, IMO), but but spam will continue to be an issue as long as we want/expect to receive incoming mail from strangers, and as long as we plan not to have a centralized authority for email identities.
Just start.
The problem is the cost of creating fake identities. As long as creating fake identities has a fixed cost (increasing linearly with the number of identities you create), there's no way to charge the "same person" exponentially more for sending more email. They'll just create new identities to send new emails.
Some people realize this and then start imagining how to forbid fake identities (forbidding truly anonymous email), but that requires a centralized identification authority, which many participants in the system are actively trying to avoid.
If you want a centralized authority for sending messages without spam, then you should just use a popular centralized messaging app. Each messaging app is controlled by a centralized authority, for better and for worse; the general consensus is that spam is a much smaller problem on centralized messaging apps than on email. But centralizing authority is a very high price to fight spam.
Today, each email client just reads the emails and tries to categorize spam, assigning each email a spam "score" and quarantining mail over a certain threshold. We track email identities only by top-level domain names, which do have a cost. Emails can be signed with DKIM/SPF, and we can penalize emails that don't sign themselves. We don't have "central authorities," but there are very popular email services, following a power law, and they're close enough. If Gmail thinks your domain reputation is too low, you're gonna have to buy a new domain name if you want to email anybody on Gmail.
Without one official centralized authority, I think that's about as good as it's ever gonna get.
That's partially handled by my other proposals: People need to pre-approve the senders (otherwise email gets held in a quarantine folder), and people can tack on a fee. Let's make the tack-on fee default to 5 cents.
> If you want a centralized authority for sending messages without spam, then you should just use a popular centralized messaging app. Each messaging app is controlled by a centralized authority, for better and for worse; the general consensus is that spam is a much smaller problem on centralized messaging apps than on email. But centralizing authority is a very high price to fight spam.
The lack of openness is the problem. I'd be happy with WhatsApp if it allowed me to set default policies such as "From person X, don't send me any forwarded messages" and so much more I can't do with WhatsApp that I could do with email.
Ultimately, the solution has to be built into the protocol, and it has to be designed to minimize bad actors not honoring the protocol. May involve cryptography, blockchain, etc (which is why it likely never will be implemented).
> If Gmail thinks your domain reputation is too low, you're gonna have to buy a new domain name if you want to email anybody on Gmail.
Right idea, but wrong implementation. Google shouldn't decide it. You as the individual should have control over the filtering.
> Without one official centralized authority, I think that's about as good as it's ever gonna get.
Very likely true. I can still fantasize.
Many schemes to do this. Things like:
The first 10 emails is $0.0001 each.
The next 10 will be $0.001 each.
And so on. You can always fiddle with the thresholds and costs.
Other than that...
The most important thing is not the protocol, it's the gui.
At the moment email's gui is horrible on all platforms without exception.
If/when a decent gui appears, protocols will follow.
Also, JMAP did reading can probably be just WebDAV?
This results in the top and left-side bars staying decorative and unobtrusive, but the concurrent visitor counter thingy is floating well above the bottom-right of the page. But then, as I shrink in the page width, the left-side bar and the concurrent visitor counter swap sides, and also a bunch of the content from the top is added to a new bar at the bottom. Eventually, the horizontal space between the side components becomes irrelevant such that they function as an additional bottom bar. At which point, maybe 40% of the vertical space is used for navigation and other shiny toys. This is really annoying, and the overall experience is inconsistent across widths.
(Also, at all widths, the top-bar has a transparent background, so main page text interferes with top-bar text as it scrolls.)
All of this is done in CSS, so presumably it can be fixed that way too.
P.S.: For future interactions, please message me privately like everyone else. This is not the right place for this.
Exactly, which is why attaching large UI shifts to that involuntary gesture makes the experience feel very unpredictable
> activating your browser's reading mode
Reading mode is a hack that's only needed because sites aren't already readable. You shouldn't have to activate it to be able to read the content.
In addition, it doesn't always work well if the website didn't test it. On your website, for example, it removes all images from the text.
> Having to click or tap a button requires the user to stop, evaluate whether the title interests them
Purposefully doing things in a way that doesn't let the user decide if they want it is called a dark pattern. Its not far from those checkboxes that try to trick you into accepting marketing newsletters. "We can't give users an option to think if they want our emails! If they don't, why don't they just use their email's spam filtering?"
You may not see it like that yourself, but huge links to your CV, talks and courses are exactly that - an ad that covers half the screen.
You have multiple people telling you the experience is bad, and you asked for why, but when people give you the explanation you argue back. That's fine of course, it's your own site and you can do whatever you like with it without trying to suit anyone. But that doesn't make the reader experience less bad.
I quickly resorted to Reader View (Firefox/Android).
Remove those, or stuff them below the article.
If that's intent, the result is highly aggravating.
The content is solid. The presentation very much Gets In The Way.
Anyhow. Depending on the viewport your panels do get in the way, it's 1/3 of the screen on mine for example. If you're going to hide the panels, hide them properly. That you show them at the top and bottom automatically, fine, though they could be smaller on mobile. However, you could at least consider the UX of using it on smaller viewports. If I want to scroll up a little bit while reading, they pop into view, making me have to scroll down to hide them again. Meaning I have to scroll higher up than intended, so I have enough space to scroll down. Another common user pattern is to slowly continually scroll too, and a tiny jitter upwards causes them to reappear, but requires comparatively massive downwards scrolling to hide again. Your site is not the only one to do this, but it's just bad design. Vision or no, and it's no justification, just an excuse. And then, what about left handed people? It's easier to accidentally click into the message box field, which opens up the keyboard and you'll have to close it. Pair this with it taking up the majority of thumb space for scrolling, given its size, and, well. Is it unreasonable for people to tell you it's aggravating? No. And this is without considering, and doing the minimum for, people who may suffer with controlling devices for whatever reason. Not by "bending over backwards" as some would have it, but at least taking such into consideration.
It's fine to have a vision of your intended or wanted design, but it's also important to be willing to reflect on how your vision may not necessarily be good design, depending on how one judges it, rather than just deflecting critique.
Generally, there is zero reasons to add moving elements to a page.
One has awesome certificate rotation and crap UI.
One has crap certificate rotation and awesome UI.
Which one will take over the world, and which one will only ever have 10 users?
How can you say that when it's one of the benefits of email that it's an open protocol and there's thousands of different apps built on top of it. Terminal UIs, web interfaces, chat interfaces etc. - that should be one of the cases where there's a GUI for anyone.
This is obviously a matter of opinion. Of course there are endless different email GUIs, on all the platforms; if you don't like one, there are many alternatives.
I cannot imagine that a "decent GUI" by modern web-development standards could be anything I'd prefer to what already exists. Email works and generally doesn't let designer ego get in the way.
Without managesieve (or some other autotagging mechanism), email is just a big pile of junk.
Even Gmail doesn't support editing filters on the mobile app. It's ludicrous in 2026. And their filters are strictly weaker than Sieve.
None of them have a feature to "quickly generate a filter rule from a message".
None of them have a way to generate a forum-like interface from a mailing list more or less automatically.
None of them (except deltachat, I think), support displaying messages linearly, one below another, rather than one at a time.
One at a time is also important. When I'm writing to my boss, I am writing a message as if it is a document. But when I'm writing to my girlfriend, I often want it to a be a one-line response.
Overquotting is badly managed. Gmail hides the previous message under a button, which is super slow, but most of the time overquotting is not even needed. There should be a button to "not quote" and "strip quotes automatically".
* DNS lookup for MX record
New version
* DNS lookup for A record
* HTTP request for .wellknown/htmp/known_hosts
Not sure why this is being considered as an improvement?
> each mailbox of a domain on a different provider
Why is this useful/necessary or even 'good'?
I might add that if you want to enforce SMTP TLS, you can do just that without mta-sts or DANE.
What concerns do you have with MTA-STS?
And don't just say we'll build that on HTTP too!
And I see a few ideas that might be worth picking up from this proposal.
Voice and text comms ... have much in common.
I don't agree with "Domain control as a fallback", as the author said "a domain is not owned, it is rented" and I want to normalise the idea that if you lose your private key, you need to start again. I hate that we keep giving so much authority to domains, it's such a big weakness. The author even left the key rotation chain out of the initial implementation.
I still think root/signer keys or sigchains are decent options.
If you have a website, please, don't subject your visitors to something like that.
Strange then that you reject critique elsewhere. Accessibility is not just a checkbox, it's to consider and test the actual use of it.
Email is more than a technology its a community. There have been plenty of technical attempts at replacing it but they have failed to un-seat email because they focus only on the technology aspect which as you have found is largely a solved problem although... getting the details right might be hard. You need buy in from the community which is not just users but also businesses and organizations that use email which is everyone from CEOs to church leaders. It's not enough to fix email you have to get buy in from the community to make a meaningful change and I don't see anything here that would do that. This isn't really a criticism, just an insight I offer. I work in this field and we're trying to get out of it cause managing email sucks. I would love something new to take its place but the community has heard so many promises that never came to fruition, when that happens you either need a better promise(harder than it seems) or you need credibility which may be very difficult in the current climate. Not an unsolvable problem, those don't exist but sometimes the lever you need to solve the problem is further than you can reach alone and this is one of those times.
Take this thought experiment - how does nearly every other standard protocol (DNS, SMTP, etc.) except for HTTP survive at scale without server-side load balancing?
Thankfully we're heading in this direction due to happy eyeballs and related client-side retry mechanisms.
No, no one wants to do that.
Username is your public key, password is your private key. So we get end to end encryption and account ownership out of the box. Something similar to how .onion addresses work. Needing easy to remember addresses? Build aliases on top of that. Needing server-side automation? Handle trusted server your private key.
Also, almost everyone carry a 24/7 powered and Internet connected device in their pockets. The Internet - network that allows globally sending any data between devices. Maybe with full redesign third-party email servers should be made optional.
I believe we should focus less on how to redesign whole service and build more universal layers instead. First, vsending any data to any machine. Second, optionally remotely accessing our data. Third, mail-like format of data.
First off, these systems always require indefinitely-lived secrets. To rotate keys (or the whole cryptosystem—think future possible quantum computers) is to change identity. Therefore, to change keys is to break the previous identity. Anything that requires users to think about long-term secrets is user hostile and leads to a fragile system.
Second, the economics of pubkey-as-address are untenable. Can you imagine publishing .onion addresses on billboards and business cards, let alone sharing them verbally? Absolutely not.
Unless there’s something I’m missing (please do say), these problems are intractable when you’re dealing with cryptosystem-based identity.
In the end, identity and naming and fundamentally human concerns. If you try to kludge around this with purely technical solutions, all you’ll end up with is a system that doesn’t adequately reflect what identity means to people. Good systems support this (DNS, email); bad systems fight this (cryptocurrency, nostr).
And greater zone diversity like you say too. Kinda related to that, something like increased pinning of non-root DNSSEC keys so that the root isn't so all-powerful.