51–60 of 165 posts
I think the network effects make email hard to replace, virtually everyone online has an email address. If this could include a migration path, with backwards compatibility with SMTP, I think it would have a better shot of getting adoption. 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…
Yeah, this subject comes up every couple months. The problem is not getting it working. Its that email is a captured system at this point and the real work is various reputation management processes that the big providers control or you can't send email to/from them. They also have no real interest in letting you be your own email provider so its just pushing a rock up a hill grind, for what? To save <$100 a year pig…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I like this. 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?
"We" tried this in the late 1990s. I remember writing an exim config to do this a couple of ways back in my ISP times: 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, this subject comes up every couple months. The problem is not getting it working. Its that email is a captured system at this point and the real work is various reputation management processes that the big providers control or you can't send email to/from them. They also have no real interest in letting you be your own email provider so its just pushing a rock up a hill grind, for what? To save <$100 a year pig…
Having worked at a provider, that is not the psychology at all. The #1 priority is to keep the mail flowing. #2 incremental improvements to security, spam, reputation is a distant second. The other thing is, providers already know and have people who work on email standards, work in the ecosystem, etc. So once you're inside, with people who know whats going on, know the tools, know how things work intuitively without…
The stories have discouraged my from spending my time on it though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having worked at a provider, that is not the psychology at all. The #1 priority is to keep the mail flowing. #2 incremental improvements to security, spam, reputation is a distant second. The other thing is, providers already know and have people who work on email standards, work in the ecosystem, etc. So once you're inside, with people who know whats going on, know the tools, know how things work intuitively without…
I have no personal experience. I've just read a lot of peoples experience around trying to do their own email hosting. It seems the majority give up after a couple years of nonstop blacklisting problems. It could simply be only people with issues post about 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having worked at a provider, that is not the psychology at all. The #1 priority is to keep the mail flowing. #2 incremental improvements to security, spam, reputation is a distant second. The other thing is, providers already know and have people who work on email standards, work in the ecosystem, etc. So once you're inside, with people who know whats going on, know the tools, know how things work intuitively without…
I have no personal experience. I've just read a lot of peoples experience around trying to do their own email hosting. It seems the majority give up after a couple years of nonstop blacklisting problems. It could simply be only people with issues post about it. The stories have discouraged my from spending my time on it though.
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.
Old version: * 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'?
Content-addressed email breaks mailing lists, as those need to be able to add headers for subscribe/unsubscribe/list id, etc. There is a reason DKIM allows you to pick which headers to sign.
I think the network effects make email hard to replace, virtually everyone online has an email address. If this could include a migration path, with backwards compatibility with SMTP, I think it would have a better shot of getting adoption. 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…
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.