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

Open-source disposable email service

sorry.idont.date

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 69 posts

Re: Open-source disposable email service

#21

Post by mdaniel »

burnished wrote: post #17
mdaniel wrote: post #11

this is not "open source," it's source available as the repo is missing any licensing terms. I dunno what the legal standing is of these package management fields https://github.com/psarna/edgemail/blob/master/Cargo.toml#L5 > since I believe at least npm defaults to some very liberal license that almost no one looks at any further and puts a sibling license file in their repo with the actual terms Also, bold move imp…

So the absence of a license means it defaults to exclusive copy right, but can advertising it as open source be construed as a 'license'? Or more broadly can express written or verbal permission count? Just interested in it hypothetically, in practice specifying a license in the text seems like a no brainer

I'm for sure not a lawyer, but in my mental model just saying "open source" is not the same as "open source under what license?" since there have been an absolutely staggering amount of discussions on this very site about the distinction between Apache, AGPL, GPL, LGPL, and that's not even getting into the non-free licenses that are often erroneously labeled as "open source"

Re: Open-source disposable email service

#22

Post by doodlesdev »

mdaniel wrote: post #21
burnished wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the absence of a license means it defaults to exclusive copy right, but can advertising it as open source be construed as a 'license'? Or more broadly can express written or verbal permission count? Just interested in it hypothetically, in practice specifying a license in the text seems like a no brainer

I'm for sure not a lawyer, but in my mental model just saying "open source" is not the same as "open source under what license?" since there have been an absolutely staggering amount of discussions on this very site about the distinction between Apache, AGPL, GPL, LGPL, and that's not even getting into the non-free licenses that are often erroneously labeled as "open source"

According to the Cargo.toml of that project the code is licensed under both MIT or Apache, whichever you choose, however it's not clear which files are under that license or whether this was even intentional. Generally, you'd expect the project to provide one or more LICENSE files and some explanation about the license in the README, along with license headers on top of every file where that licensing is relevant.

Re: Open-source disposable email service

#24

Post by dizhn »

johnklos wrote: post #16
mteam88 wrote: post #13

I would love something like this that forwards to a gmail address

That can't work because Google does content-based filtering. They blame the forwarder for any spam or anything forwarded that's spam-like, and there's no way to designate a source as a legitimate (that is, don't blame it) forwarder.

I use 33mail with gmail as the actual destination.

Re: Open-source disposable email service

#27

Post by kornhole »

rvz wrote: post #26

Just like the other disposable email providers, this one will eventually get blocked pretty quickly. Instead, use a forwarding email from Gmail, Hey.com, Outlook or ProtonMail.

Or get a cheap domain and setup a catchall email forwarding to a private box. If you want an anonymous domain, checkout https://kycnot.me/services#VPS.

Re: Open-source disposable email service

#28

Post by zinxq »

racingmars wrote: post #5
FpUser wrote: post #4

>"All inboxes are public." What does that mean exactly? Hopefully not that everybody else can look at my "throwaway" inbox.

>>"All inboxes are public." >What does that mean exactly? Hopefully not that everybody else can look at my "throwaway" inbox. It means exactly that. This is in the spirit of the old free version of Mailinator. Use a randomly generated string as the local part of the address to prevent others from guessing and looking that that inbox.

Mailinator of course still works this way too. It has private domains, but it still fully supports public,free,disposable addresses @mailinator.com.

Just enter any inbox you want at the top of the homepage.

Re: Open-source disposable email service

#29

Post by mat_epice »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #14
macintux wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been a happy customer of https://33mail.com/ for years. It’s a different style of offering with a similar purpose and apparently a sustainable business model.

Fastmail supports something like this, but the process of adding a new outbound alias every time I need one is not streamlined enough, so the conversation goes like this: > otherperson@ABC.com to burner123@subdomain.mydomain.com: Blah blah > me@mydomain.com to otherperson@ABC.com: Blah back at you! > otherpersonABC@ABC.com to me@mydomain.com: Who are you and why are you responding to my message to burner123@subdomain…

Under "my email addresses" in settings, I have "*@example.com" as one of the entries. With this arrangement, fastmail properly fills in the appropriate example.com email address when I reply.
Post reply on HN