Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

unencumberedbyfacts.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 235 posts

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#191

Post by bscphil »

sitharus wrote: post #185
richardwhiuk wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's tripe. They know who authenticated to the SMTP server, so they could enforce that the From address is who it was authenticated by. Otherwise, they basically act as an open relay.

Sending from multiple From addresses is a common use case. I send from at least 4 different email addresses all hosted by fastmail in the same account. Having to create different logins to authenticate each sender would be a huge pain. Plus it's not a unique problem to fastmail.

Presumably they could require that the from address is one your authenticated user is allowed to use, right?

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#192

Post by bscphil »

Riverheart wrote: post #100
aepiepaey wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to make it clear, is this true if you use your own domain, or just if you use any of Fastmail's domains?

Seems to be just Fastmail domains but there might be some setup involved for custom domains. See their docs https://www.fastmail.com/help/technical/senderauthentication...

If I understand this correctly, you need to be managing your own DNS (not letting Fastmail do it), and you probably need to set p=reject in your DMARC so that non-fastmail servers can't spoof your addresses.

And if Fastmail allows Fastmail user A to spoof Fastmail user B, then the above still only protects you against non-Fastmail customers.

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#193

Post by shawnz »

sitharus wrote: post #185
richardwhiuk wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's tripe. They know who authenticated to the SMTP server, so they could enforce that the From address is who it was authenticated by. Otherwise, they basically act as an open relay.

Sending from multiple From addresses is a common use case. I send from at least 4 different email addresses all hosted by fastmail in the same account. Having to create different logins to authenticate each sender would be a huge pain. Plus it's not a unique problem to fastmail.

Gmail requires that you prove ownership of an email address by clicking a link in an email before letting you choose it as a From: address. I think this is a good compromise.

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#194

Post by jamesgeck0 »

OtterCoder wrote: post #138
PaulHoule wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Email is "good enough". The real hole is "instant messaging". Somehow every few years we got from ICQ to AIM to Paltalk to Skype to Facebook Messenger to Slack to ... (at least Altassian had the decency to take HipChat behind the woodshed and shoot it) The strange thing is that these services dry up, blow away, get replaced, but they don't seem to improve on what came before. There is a standard, XMPP, but the only p…

IRC works pretty well. I really fail to understand why any tech project puts their chat on Slack/Discord/Whatever when IRC is easy and open.

First, IRC isn't easy for newbies. I tried to adopt it at the first tech company I worked for, and our support folks had a lot of trouble getting the basics down. There could be a client that makes things easier, but I've never seen one as easy as Slack.

Second, IRC alone doesn't provide a bunch of features that everyone expects nowadays. You have to host or pay for a bouncer if you want to see what was said when you were offline, for example. Gotta use a 3rd party service for push notifications on iOS. Again, there's no reason why this couldn't exist, but it's another product, not just IRC.

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#196

Post by regecks »

shawnz wrote: post #193
sitharus wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sending from multiple From addresses is a common use case. I send from at least 4 different email addresses all hosted by fastmail in the same account. Having to create different logins to authenticate each sender would be a huge pain. Plus it's not a unique problem to fastmail.

Gmail requires that you prove ownership of an email address by clicking a link in an email before letting you choose it as a From: address. I think this is a good compromise.

You can also take a blacklisting approach, where it's open-by-default and users shall be able to restrict any domain to properly authenticated users only. That way, it is purely a security enhancement for those who want it (like me).

I demonstrated this behavior to eggsampler after discovering it quite a long time ago by messing around with HTTP payloads in their web interface - it's wild to me that FastMail will use the DKIM private keys from an entirely different FM account to sign your messages.

Unlike eggsampler, I won't be ditching them, but I hope that FM reconsider their policy eventually. That they have awarded themselves the privilege of a "green tick" on their own official emails while throwing everybody else to the wolves is slightly ironic.

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#197

Post by cletus »

donalhunt wrote: post #187
loeg wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main thing gmail offered back then was a frickin GB of email storage. (Which spawned a host of other things, like a FUSE filesystem backed by Gmail.) No other free provider was even close! Hotmail offered email measured in 10s of MB and I'm sure Yahoo was similar. (I got my first gmail account in 2004.) Yeah, the UI wasn't bad, but there was less email back then and I didn't (still don't) really mind being served…

Hotmail provided just 2MB of space when gmail launched on 01 Apr 2004. They increased it to 250MB in June 2004. source: https://www.pcworld.com/article/116657/article.html

I used Yahoo Mail at the time, which had a limit of 6MB (and IIRC that had been an increase at some point). Soon after GMail came out they upped that to 250MB. Searching now I find an article saying this happened December 2004. I seem to remember it happening closer to the GMail announcement though but I could be wrong.

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#198

Post by gsich »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #92
gsich wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could pay with computing power. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash

It seems like a good idea until you realize spammers, like DDoSers, aren't using their own machines. The idea was dead on arrival.

Then you might at least notice some CPU usage.

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#199

Post by distances »

loeg wrote: post #172
distances wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$30 for a smaller inbox though. I have all my email since 90s in there and it all still fits just fine.

For people reading along: $50/yr gets you 25 GB; $30/yr gets you 2 GB. I'd guess 2 GB would work just fine for most people. OTOH, my relatively new gmail account has >4 GB in it. Other accounts have 0.8 and >3 GB; none of these were used for file storage (FUSE) or anything like that. https://www.fastmail.com/pricing/

I wonder, maybe I then just don't receive that much email? I did a quick count in the folders view, there's currently about 35k emails which take up about 1.7G of space.

Re: JMAP: Like IMAP but Not Really

#200

Post by Mailtemi »

shittyadmin wrote: post #124

So, you say that it doesn't maintain a persistent connection, but that poses a problem - it needs a way to do push notifications still I assume? Those need an open socket somewhere - does JMAP allow for it or does it make you rely on a 3rd party?

If you are mention Ios/Android, yes you need the proxy to redirect push calls from JMAP server to the push services of apple/google.
Post reply on HN