HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
networkimprov
mnm
Go2020–2021
networkimprov / mnm

mnm

mnm implements TMTP protocol. Let Internet sites message members directly, instead of unreliable, insecure email. Contributors welcome! (Server)

4Distinct people
14Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
225GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

mnm implements TMTP protocol. Let Internet sites message members directly, instead of unreliable, insecure email. Contributors welcome! (Server)

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 1:49:46 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by week14 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2020-12-15 23:36:19 UTC to 2021-05-01 01:11:23 UTC. Weeks start Monday, UTC.

02462020-12-14 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-12-21 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsDec 142020-12-21 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-12-28 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-12-28 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-04 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2021-01-04 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-11 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2021-01-11 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-18 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 7 mentions; 0 submissions, 7 comments2021-01-18 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-25 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-01-25 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-02-08 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-02-08 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-02-15 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-02-15 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-02-22 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsFeb 152021-02-22 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-03-08 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-03-08 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-03-15 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2021-03-15 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-03-22 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2021-03-22 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-03-29 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-03-29 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-04-05 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-04-05 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-04-12 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-04-12 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-04-19 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-04-19 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-04-26 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2021-04-26 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-05-03 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsApr 26

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Dec 142020-12-14 00:00:00 UTC2020-12-21 00:00:00 UTC101
Dec 212020-12-21 00:00:00 UTC2020-12-28 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 282020-12-28 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-04 00:00:00 UTC101
Jan 42021-01-04 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-11 00:00:00 UTC202
Jan 112021-01-11 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-18 00:00:00 UTC707
Jan 182021-01-18 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-25 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 252021-01-25 00:00:00 UTC2021-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 12021-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-02-08 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 82021-02-08 00:00:00 UTC2021-02-15 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 152021-02-15 00:00:00 UTC2021-02-22 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 222021-02-22 00:00:00 UTC2021-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 12021-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-03-08 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 82021-03-08 00:00:00 UTC2021-03-15 00:00:00 UTC101
Mar 152021-03-15 00:00:00 UTC2021-03-22 00:00:00 UTC101
Mar 222021-03-22 00:00:00 UTC2021-03-29 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 292021-03-29 00:00:00 UTC2021-04-05 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 52021-04-05 00:00:00 UTC2021-04-12 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 122021-04-12 00:00:00 UTC2021-04-19 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 192021-04-19 00:00:00 UTC2021-04-26 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 262021-04-26 00:00:00 UTC2021-05-03 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

14 sources
Author here. Sorry to be late to the party. AMA. Follow mnm! https://twitter.com/mnmnotmail To address some comments... The protocol[1] has two layers, altho that's not emphasized in the draft. The outer layer covers posting messages for recipients. The inner layer describes message contents, and isn't enforced by the server (see protocol #7 Post //datahead segment). You can do special-purpose apps with the outer layer without supporting the inner if you don't send messages to normal clients. EDIT: The protocol will see many more revisions (some already planned), and real-world use, before it's proposed to a standards body. This isn't a drop-in/swap-out replacement for email. It's a (far) better way of doing electronic correspondence. It will take some years to build the community and infrastructure necessary for TMTP to widely supplant S
Read the rest
MTP. It's been suggested recently that I draft an architecture doc for TMTP[2], which will also discuss infrastructure. Part of that infrastructure involves "marketplace" sites which verify members' real-life identities and let people make contact with folks outside their normal circles (e.g. work, school, community, hobbies/interests). Most professional organizations would run marketplace sites for their members. I gather that the IETF has (repeatedly) stated that it is not interested in adjusting SMTP to solve "the spam problem". [3] Re end-to-end encryption, that can be considered for the inner layer protocol. I don't rule it out, but it's not a priority at present. If successful, "mnm" won't be the only implementation of TMTP. Maybe some other client will have a better name. (OTOH, Slack did well, and that's a pretty terrible name for a workplace tool ;-) EDIT2: SMTP and related protocols have no effective defense against phishing. A large fraction of phishing attempts originate at authenticated domains, like Gmail. --- [1] https://github.com/networkimprov/mnm/blob/master/Protocol.md [2] https://github.com/networkimprov/mnm/issues/5 [3] https://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html
In Mnm – an open source project to replace email and SMTP
>I was looking for protocol descriptions in how this could work. Author said people would be more impressed by code - but I think a protocol spec along with a reference implementation would be useful. I went and looked for a protocol spec as well. When I didn't see anything concrete on the site in the submission title, I poked around the comments a bit more and found a link to the Github issue[0] requesting detail with respect to the architecture of the TMTP protocol. I further poked around in the appropriate places[1] but found nothing remotely related. The protocol spec[2], while useful in defining the control mechanisms and message formats is vague or silent when it comes to a variety (too many to list completely here) of functional, operational and implementation issues. A comparison of TMTP's spec with SMTP[3] ("the protocol at the
Read the rest
root of all these problems"[2] with messaging), is quite illuminating. While SMTP by itself lacks a variety of features, it provides a robust, interoperable architecture that's broadly supported and has been augmented repeatedly by other protocols (e.g., MIME, DMARC/DKIM, SMTP-AUTH, LDAP, etc.) to provide such features. It's not clear to me that mnm/TMTP has been fleshed out enough to provide a real alternative to SMTP+extensions. Rather, it appears to be another (there are many) client/server messaging application that's not interoperable. Should these issues be addressed, discussed and refined in the appropriate forums[4], It's possible that TMTP could turn out to be a viable replacement for SMTP. I applaud the authors' work and hope they have much success with their entry in the messaging app market. [0] https://github.com/networkimprov/mnm/issues/5 [1] https://www.ietf.org [2] https://mnmnotmail.org/rationale.html [3] https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5321.txt [4] https://www.ietf.org/how/wgs/ Edit: Fixed links.
In Mnm – an open source project to replace email and SMTP
It's largely overlooked that the success of Slack & MS Teams is partly due to the cybercrime portal that email has become. IOW, you don't get phished in your org's Slack chats. To prevent phishing, any chat service will suffice; an open protocol isn't necessary, as you don't intend to engage with ppl outside your org. The essential problem IMO is how to replace SMTP. No one has proposed and implemented an alternative, to my knowledge. So I decided to[1]. The current draft omits federation (although I wouldn't rule it out in all cases yet). [1] https://github.com/networkimprov/mnm/blob/master/Protocol.md
In Slack is down

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.