Email is tremendously useful, and whatever replaces it should borrow from those useful bits. It also has numerous problems. Some are listed in the article:

1. Clients (and some servers) mangle email. You can't be assured that what you send is what someone else will receive. I blame the clients and servers here, but ...

2. Privacy. This has become among the biggest downsides. Whether it's data-in-flight or data-at-rest, email remains an exceptionally poor choice for private communications, and there's been little real progress on addressing this, in large part because of vendor reluctance at both client and server / system level. E.g., Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and AOL.

3. Users. Systems which work well with email rely strongly on compliance by users, which relies strongly on enforcement by communications managers or moderators. For LKML, that would be the kernel mailing list etiquette. Battles over header formats, quoting styles, and quote before vs. after exist because these strongly impact workflow and efficiency of groups as a whole. Failure to acculturise hampers the group, and acculturisation rates limit group size and growth.

Much of Linus's noted "personality problems" come from the task of having to corral a group of people over which he has little if any formal control, a decidedly limited-bandwidth social communications channel (e.g., no tone, expression, voice, facial gestures, etc. signals), and the necessity TO BE UNAMBIGUOUSLY CLEAR when someone is transgressing norms. (Yes, I'm aware of HN's norms on ALL CAPS.)

4. File formats. Both a blessing and a curse: you can send anything. This means any given group can specify its preferences, but also raises the problem that there are few global preferences given. Kernel development works well with email by having specific tools and formats, from coding style to patch and git tools which create workable code fragments, to conventions for list discussion. This is strongly linked to #3 above.

5. The directory. In thinking about how email compares with other proposed alternatives, one key is that email lacks the concept of a central directory. Or at least, not a formal one (spammers may trade in same). On Twitter, or Facebook, or HN, every individual user is uniquely identified within a global directory. In Email, by contrast, what exist are addresses, which is to say, <user>@<domain>, where the domain has its own sub-directory. But there's no guarantee that domain1 would know that user1 is some valid directory entry at domain2. At best, domain1 knows how to reach domain2, and attempt delivery, via DNS, generally though not necessarily through MX records. This becomes more of a problem with ...

6. Spam and spoofing. Because there's no global directory, the validity of an email from <user2>@<domain2> cannot be assessed. In fact, there's no requirement that that even be a valid address, though as a convention it's generally considerate and useful. There've been numerous hacks to add increasing levels of authentication to email (SPF, DKIM), but the protocols remain weak. There's a much broader problem of metadata leakage. Deriving from this:

7. Reputation. Much of the spam problem derives from poor tools and support for establishing, assessing, sharing, and acting on the reputation of specific senders -- whether individual originators, email hosts, domains, or IP ranges. Changes to how the Internet is being used, including very large aggregated email providers (e.g., Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL), and point-of-origin masking systems such as Tor make formerly useful concepts of IP and domain-based reptuations of limited reliability. And a consequence is that the assurance of getting messages through to any one person are becoming quite low. The more users are added to a system, the higher the noise level.

Email was designed for a friendly, unencrypted, lightly used system of mostly known and fairly trusted users numbering in the thousands. It's scaled remarkably well, by roughly six orders of magnitude. But it's become exceptionally creaky.