Open-source disposable email service • Hacker News Board

Re: Open-source disposable email service

#41

Post by __MatrixMan__ » Sat, May 13, 2023, 5:20 AM UTC

mat_epice wrote: post #29

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh I may have overlooked that, thanks.

Re: Open-source disposable email service

#42

Post by ipaddr » Sat, May 13, 2023, 5:29 AM UTC

usr1106 wrote: post #38

For incoming mail this is easy to do yourself if you have a little root server with a decent subdomain (the domain does not even need to be owned by you) But for outgoing mail that requires real work / knowledge / full control over your DNS records. Recently gmail has stopped to accept any email without SPF/DKIM.

So not having SPF/DKIM setup could be considered a privacy feature if gmail is going to reject those outright.

Re: Open-source disposable email service

#43

Post by hannob » Sat, May 13, 2023, 6:14 AM UTC

There's a security problem with this and many other such services. Writing this here hoping that this increases knowledge about this:

I would be able to get a TLS certificate for this host. Why? Some TLS certificate providers allow verifying the domain via access to one of the privileged aliases like postmaster. So I could receive the verification token URL by looking at the postmaster inbox.

Every service offering any type of email inbox should block these aliases. They are ‘admin’, ‘administrator’, ‘webmaster’, ‘hostmaster’, ‘postmaster’. This is specified in the so-called Baseline Requirements, which is the standard for the operation of certificate authorities: https://cabforum.org/baseline-requirements-documents/

Re: Open-source disposable email service

#44

Post by yawpitch » Sat, May 13, 2023, 6:19 AM UTC

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.

Why, off hand, would anyone block an email _receiver_… from a quick glance at the server code, this project is essentially an SMTP dead end; any mail sent to it is temporarily stored in the database, then periodically flushed. With no sending or forwarding of mail to other servers, and assuming it’s properly acknowledging receipt, why would anyone else block it?

Re: Open-source disposable email service

#45

Post by yawpitch » Sat, May 13, 2023, 6:43 AM UTC

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…

Pretty sure that, legally speaking, an author publicly declaring that a piece of publicly published work is offered as open source, coupled in this case with also indicating (albeit indirectly and not obviously) via the Cargo.toml that the work is specifically licensed under “MIT OR Apache”, is more than sufficient to block them from ever successfully pursuing someone else for damages under their copyright for use consistent with those indicated licenses. That declaration effectively does make this “open source” under the plain meaning of that term — the source is openly available, and the author’s clear and openly stated intent is that it is offered as openly available under specific licensure terms — what it probably (or at least properly) is not is “Open Source” per the definition of the OSI.

The author should certainly clarify the license terms if they want this to be widely used, but though I wouldn’t use this for MANY reasons, not one of them is fear of having violated the author’s copyrights.

Re: Open-source disposable email service

#46

Post by vikarti » Sat, May 13, 2023, 6:47 AM UTC

yawpitch wrote: post #44

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.

Why, off hand, would anyone block an email _receiver_… from a quick glance at the server code, this project is essentially an SMTP dead end; any mail sent to it is temporarily stored in the database, then periodically flushed. With no sending or forwarding of mail to other servers, and assuming it’s properly acknowledging receipt, why would anyone else block it?

People who want 'real customers' who read their very important emails ?

Right now email verification services like verifymail.io says idont.date provides 'real' emails

Re: Open-source disposable email service

#47

Post by INTPenis » Sat, May 13, 2023, 6:55 AM UTC

mteam88 wrote: post #13

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

Receiving is easy, sending is hard. That's why disposable services let you read the mail in their GUI instead of forwarding them.

Re: Open-source disposable email service

#48

Post by solatic » Sat, May 13, 2023, 7:57 AM UTC

I imagine this domain will quickly end up on lists like this one: https://knowledge.hubspot.com/forms/what-domains-are-blocked...

The real value here is the opening of the source code. Set up a cheap domain, set up a cheap VPS, use Tailscale or similar to keep the web UI private, then you're good.

Re: Open-source disposable email service

#49

Post by CodesInChaos » Sat, May 13, 2023, 9:07 AM UTC

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.

Most of those require a phone number to sign up. Though I managed to sign up to protonmail by giving it a disposable email.

Re: Open-source disposable email service

#50

Post by xigoi » Sat, May 13, 2023, 9:40 AM UTC

doodlesdev wrote: post #39

usr1106 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with LICENSE and README file. But having license headers on top of every file feels a bit like a corporate lawyer requirement. Is that really common in all open source projects?

> Is that really common in all open source projects? Common? Depends. Necessary or correct? That's a whole 'other can of worms: Depending on the open-source license you're using it's actually _required_ to do that, although many developers (like me) don't actually do it because in reality it really doesn't matter, but strictly speaking it's the correct (and sometimes necessary) thing to do. The overall principle is t…

Is there any copyleft license that doesn't require this?