Internet email isn't anonymous, never was. Even in the early days. There has always been a multitude of ways to track email back to the origin server. And there has been a multitude of ways to obfuscate but not hide that origin.
Any anonymity you may have is based on the origin server either not knowing or not being willing to disclose that information. Every email received generally will be able to be tracked back to the origin server, with the caveat that sometimes the owner of the origin server will be unable to be determined since any random person can spin up a server, send mail, and drop off the planet. Note that spf and dmarc don't validate the user. They only validate that the email originated from servers known to send mail for a given domain and provide some cryptographic assurance of that fact. It's a way for legitimate companies to ensure that email that appears to come from them actually comes from them and for companies like google to be able to reject what appear to be emails with spoofed sender information. On Sun, Mar 12, 2023, 3:17 PM Jan-GAMs <j.vank...@grnacres.net> wrote: > Because 45 years ago my company was connected to the rest of itself via > the arpanet and they promised us on a stack of bibles that those who used > the email system would always remain anonymous. Of course, then later they > published a 5,000 page phone book with all our emails associated with our > work addresses for over 50,000 employees. I printed it out and put it in a > 3-ring binder and put it in the computer room where the other users could > use it. Back then we had these machines called an Alto and each user had > this big plastic cartridge with a huge disk in it. If I recall, this > generated a lawsuit, because they promised us that no-one would ever know > our email address associated with our work phone, work address, etc... . > It wasn't true then and it still isn't true. But that can't make it, the > promise, unsaid. > On 3/12/23 09:47, Steve Jones wrote: > > wtf, where did you get that email was designed for anonymity? > > This is getting to some Qanon level right here > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 11:40 AM Jan-GAMs <j.vank...@grnacres.net> wrote: > >> good question Forrest. mail.com provides several hundred domains to >> choose from and use and easily works with thunderbird as well as most other >> email reader applications. Plus it's free. All Google is doing is >> monopolizing email. Email was originally designed to be used by arpanet to >> be free/open/anonymous and to still be functional even after a global war. >> Using spf/dkim removes the anonymous. I don't think that's right. I also >> think that since you have just shown me how easy it is to send fake mail, >> it also seems it could be about as easy to add a fake spf/dkim into it with >> a little more python scripting. End result is now google knows exactly who >> you are and who you're sending to and the spam filters are broken because >> now we'll have verified spam mail. >> >> Who are you? Who do you know? What is the content? Where is your >> privacy? >> >> Problems with the ease of Telnetting spoof mail: I do not know anyone who >> has their very own homemade mail server, plus, I do not know anyone who has >> actually built and setup successfully a homebrew DIY email server. I do >> know lots of people who have tried to do so, including myself. It's way >> easier to buy it as a service and then it gets expensive. Another problem >> is most of the free email servers won't allow users to send more than 10 >> emails at a time and you have to wait up to an hour before you can send 10 >> more. That's why I tried to build my own, just so I could send customers >> the monthly billing automatically. I even hired a programmer who said he >> had done it before, he failed. >> On 3/12/23 07:32, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote: >> >> I can insert a spoofed email using only telnet to port 25 on a mail >> server in about 30 seconds not counting the time it takes to type the >> message itself. Basically you telnet to port 25, issue four commands (HELO, >> MAIL FROM, RCPT TO, DATA), and then type the message itself. >> >> Spoofing email in an automated way only takes some basic python skills. >> Like I could teach anyone with a bit of computer experience how to do it >> in about an hour or so. This python script can run on anything that runs >> python, which is pretty much any general purpose computing device. >> >> So it is ridiculously cheap and easy to spoof email. >> >> The reason it is so easy is that email by itself has zero authentication >> of origin and an open, plaintext, protocol. >> >> The purpose of spf/dkim/dmarc is to add a level of authentication >> information to at least be able to reject some spoofed emails. >> >> What that Google bounce says is that there is something in the mail.com >> email which doesn't match the spf/dmarc/dkim records. I'm not 100٪ sure >> but it seems to not be happy with the linuxmail.org domain being inside >> the email record. >> >> How are the mail.com emails being generated? Are they through a web >> server client on mail.com? If not, where? And are the emails from a >> mail.com address or are you just using mail.com to relay mail from >> another domain? >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 12, 2023, 1:20 AM Jan-GAMs <j.vank...@grnacres.net> wrote: >> >>> I can't recall ever using telnet for anything recent, it's ancient, >>> doesn't work with anything much in todays world. How would this be useful >>> in sending email? >>> On 3/11/23 21:36, Steve Jones wrote: >>> >>> telnet is fancy expensive equipment needed to spoof email? Ive never >>> paid for telnet >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 10:48 PM Jan-GAMs <j.vank...@grnacres.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> You see, that's exactly where we part ways. Engulf and Devour was the >>>> villain corporation in the Silent Movie by Mel Brooks. Every time I saw >>>> that movie, I couldn't help but think of Microsoft and Google slicing up >>>> the planet for themselves. Gives me diarrhea just thinking about those two >>>> companies. >>>> >>>> You have to have some pretty fancy expensive equipment just to spoof >>>> email, so why bother? It's not the little folk who are doing the >>>> spoofing. So when they get all us little folk passing on all our secrets >>>> of our little lives. Then the spoofers will start using fake SPF/DKIM and >>>> then we're right back to as much or more SPAM as ever. Problem will be >>>> worse than ever. >>>> On 3/11/23 18:07, Darin Steffl wrote: >>>> >>>> I was curious so found that Gmail started requiring emails sent to >>>> personal Gmail to have SPF or DKIM enabled or emails would be rejected or >>>> sent to spam. Good for them to drag the bad email hosts along for the ride >>>> in preventing spam. >>>> >>>> These prevention measures are ridiculously easy to implement so I don't >>>> have any patience for email hosts who don't set them up. If you can't >>>> handle simple tasks, outsource things to the big boys. >>>> >>>> >>>> https://support.google.com/a/answer/174124?hl=en#:~:text=Important%3A%20Starting%20November%202022%2C%20new,to%20verify%20they're%20authenticated >>>> . >>>> >>>> On Sat, Mar 11, 2023, 7:33 PM Matt Hopkins <mhopk...@hunterfiber.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Do you use any Microsoft products? If you use Windows and care about >>>>> data security then you've already failed. I find Microsoft the most >>>>> deplorable, but I'm only one guy. I have to pick my battles. I refuse to >>>>> use Microsoft (anything) but we use Gmail at work and it's more or less >>>>> flawless. We have had some people report they can't reach us but the >>>>> resolution is always what has already been mentioned here. Google made >>>>> DKIM/SPF mandatory I want to say just a few months ago but many of the >>>>> smaller mail providers do not have it set up yet. >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Mar 11, 2023, 4:49 PM Darin Steffl <darin.ste...@mnwifi.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Jan, >>>>>> >>>>>> Most of the links you shared aren't of Google being hacked, but >>>>>> people being scammed/phished. Tricking a user into sharing their login >>>>>> info >>>>>> means the user was scammed, not that google was hacked. ONE link you >>>>>> shared >>>>>> says less than 24 gmails in Iran were hacked somehow. None of your links >>>>>> share that google has had a massive data breach at any time. That's not >>>>>> to >>>>>> say it can't/won't happen but there's been no big hacks at Google as far >>>>>> as >>>>>> I can remember. >>>>>> >>>>>> I stand by my claim that you're being paranoid. I promise you that >>>>>> mail.com or hosting your own email is far less secure and more >>>>>> easily hacked than Google is. Do you have thousands of engineers working >>>>>> to >>>>>> keep your data secure? That answer is NO. I am not delusional enough to >>>>>> think that hosting my own Linux server for email will be more secure than >>>>>> Google. There's no way I can outsmart hackers, keep updated on hourly or >>>>>> daily updates and patches, etc. Nor do I want to do that when I can >>>>>> outsource to a company that does it much better than I do. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't host a single server for our WISP in 11 years in business and >>>>>> I won't be starting today. The cloud is the future and keeps me hands off >>>>>> on servers and software. If there's a problem, it's someone else's job to >>>>>> fix it and my only job is to report the issue. What if I'm on vacation >>>>>> and >>>>>> I had one or more servers that failed? Now that's my job to fix things >>>>>> while I'm supposed to be off the clock. I don't need that kind of stress >>>>>> in >>>>>> my life so I refuse to host any servers that are mission critical to my >>>>>> business. The only thing resembling a server would be our Preseem >>>>>> appliance >>>>>> but we have backup OSPF routes around it in case that fails. >>>>>> >>>>>> Our billing system is Azotel and they have hosted it in the cloud for >>>>>> us since we started 11 years ago. Total downtime in 11 years is under 1 >>>>>> hour. Not every cloud service is that reliable. They handle the multiple >>>>>> backups and securing of the servers too. Slack, for example, has probably >>>>>> had 12 hours of downtime or subpar performance in the 5 years we've used >>>>>> it >>>>>> but it still was an issue I didn't have to fix myself. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 2:31 PM Steve Jones < >>>>>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I like dmarc since you get to dictate the strictness and get reports >>>>>>> on your overall deliverability >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 7:44 PM Darin Steffl < >>>>>>> darin.ste...@mnwifi.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jan, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't recall any hacks or data breaches to Google at all. I've >>>>>>>> seen plenty of other platforms with breaches like t-mobile but Google >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> pretty secure. I think you're acting a little paranoid in protecting >>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>> phone number. I can pay some online service and get your home address, >>>>>>>> phone numbers, and social security number if I wanted to. This >>>>>>>> information >>>>>>>> that you think is very secure is almost public knowledge for a fee. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As others have said, DKIM/SPF are industry standards, not Google, >>>>>>>> and they're pretty old at this point. DMARC is newer, to me at least, >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> the last several years so not every platform gives much weight to this >>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>> DKIM and SPF is a must nowadays for any email provider. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 4:03 PM Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> DKIM/SPF/DFMARC aren't "made-up standards" from Google. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 4:31 PM Jan-GAMs <j.vank...@grnacres.net> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't see how you come to the conclusion that my paid for mail >>>>>>>>>> service is supposed to have recently imposed made-up standards from >>>>>>>>>> google >>>>>>>>>> that comply only with google as some sort of long-standing standard. >>>>>>>>>> It's >>>>>>>>>> a recent standard imposed by google. And I'm never going to >>>>>>>>>> willingly give >>>>>>>>>> google my phone number so that when they get hacked again the >>>>>>>>>> hackers will >>>>>>>>>> have my email and my phone number. Why don't I just broadcast on >>>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>>> public website my social security number too? Yeah, tiktok or >>>>>>>>>> twitter, >>>>>>>>>> give them my phone number, ssi, home address, all my emails along >>>>>>>>>> with my >>>>>>>>>> real name. Because when you give google your phone number, they now >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> exactly who you are and access to all your private info. How many >>>>>>>>>> times in >>>>>>>>>> the last couple years has google been hacked? Constantly! I am not >>>>>>>>>> going >>>>>>>>>> to freely give this shit to them. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well, I'm wrong, you're right. When I bought the phone, google >>>>>>>>>> forced me into an email address as part of using the phone. I never >>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>> that email and I refuse to login to anything using that email. >>>>>>>>>> Other than >>>>>>>>>> that I don't know how to tell them to sit on a sharp stick and twirl. >>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/23 12:02, Steve Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> if you had followed your email providers instructions, you >>>>>>>>>> wouldnt have created your own problems. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> spam is floating score based. bulk/public/free/spamhost email >>>>>>>>>> providers have high scores to start. proper spf loweres it, lack of >>>>>>>>>> dkim >>>>>>>>>> raises it, lack of dmarc raises it, content cn raise it, all the IPs >>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>> mail chain can raise it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thats why youre responsible for doing your part to increase your >>>>>>>>>> deliverability. If you were sending a business correspondence you >>>>>>>>>> might go >>>>>>>>>> as far as sending it certified mail, becaus eyou want >>>>>>>>>> deliverability. But >>>>>>>>>> if you didnt go that far, you wouldnt put the correspondence in an >>>>>>>>>> envelope >>>>>>>>>> that looks like dish network advertising because it would be >>>>>>>>>> discarded as >>>>>>>>>> junk mail, you wouldnt put it an odd shaped envelope that can get >>>>>>>>>> stuck in >>>>>>>>>> the sorting machines, you wouldnt put phrase like "sperm burglar" on >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> exterior, youd put it in a business class envelope with windows and >>>>>>>>>> clearly >>>>>>>>>> visible address marking, a proper return address, etc. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Weve been managing deliverability with these types of methods >>>>>>>>>> since before emails. and even that changed over time. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 1:50 PM Jan-GAMs <j.vank...@grnacres.net> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So, since grnacres doesn't have dkim or dmarc records, they >>>>>>>>>>> should be getting bounced like the mail.com records too. I >>>>>>>>>>> don't have any control over the mail servers. I rent the service >>>>>>>>>>> "easymail" along with the domain name from easydns. You know, it >>>>>>>>>>> sounds to >>>>>>>>>>> me more like google is a terrorist organization stamping on the >>>>>>>>>>> competition >>>>>>>>>>> just because they can get away with it. They make shit up, and >>>>>>>>>>> terrorize >>>>>>>>>>> those whom they want to force into compliance with their made-up >>>>>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>> Next they're going to be asking for money >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Where is the anti-trust people when you need them? >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/23 10:55, Steve Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> grnacres.net doesnt have dkim nor a dmarc record. Thats bad >>>>>>>>>>> domain deliverability practice, nothing to do with the mailhost >>>>>>>>>>> perse, but >>>>>>>>>>> if mail.com doesnt support dkim, its a trash mail host like >>>>>>>>>>> sherweb. Cant blame recipient mail servers when the root issue is >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> sending server isnt current. Its like getting pissed that somebody >>>>>>>>>>> doesnt get communications you sent out by telegraph >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 12:49 PM Steve Jones < >>>>>>>>>>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:b0d9:b0:8af:3519:ea1 with SMTP id >>>>>>>>>>>> bk25-20020a170906b0d900b008af35190ea1mr29983208ejb.57.1678462982507; >>>>>>>>>>>> Fri, 10 Mar 2023 07:43:02 -0800 (PST) >>>>>>>>>>>> ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1678462982; cv=none; >>>>>>>>>>>> d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> b=bJKHFyjF+9UzBXciF4y3cYBJwrgmwap9OQ3AsQpf2nOFXGkTbLP4C0qHnlLFHXPcA5 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> TAdqmLZYourjPpwIUaAuOjrJO9npBlDZRwv5N/S7xI4iPV2aly79cft4VRXOcfmk7CA0 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> n0mVQfby5GZR1DD+W1UzAdSHRUH51Nn/V7ounZGXel07tvWfVO8Oso9xga3lPfnUACNp >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> TcgZPJSw+qZN7TBryDh9Wu1NFoyTBlKOGbgmQ/kCB0sSolGD+JqNOny+m40Pwdqh40ZD >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jfEM9U9v6Wc6ORTM1FaDpf5Lp9kw8+8gZwnpXwXqFX4mb8gxYt+hZCPJm+kDipw/lDr3 >>>>>>>>>>>> bhLA== >>>>>>>>>>>> ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; >>>>>>>>>>>> d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> h=content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:content-language:to >>>>>>>>>>>> :user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id; >>>>>>>>>>>> bh=IehNk68dy6Xm43VADrOc3Wts/VQhOY9VIh8QjaijTk8=; >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> b=NyqdCYZBzsrNlw9g7CPu4CfeQy64PQOMwX8TEIFWlUxO7XScd6qJ5xAmPDrypL8w2e >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> /h4c7ONmrtQsk65hcKCBSJxq4sztWtnPNbv9HZ2VBdC6R/JGcUovOQ5syUTVRAaGoGyg >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 6quG7biEF/Sud2xX/FBh1gMx50IFKJnscAlxCqvWnWzI5C01HgPhIT9hVh3Plz2YjWHQ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> hgdmHROdvAdaX6uEl3nz7l4ojOhValcTQDuIakI9ydlRN2QZT12hL1OWX71MpeoGvVMA >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> jmEKbqXHlTu8rWPYvmL0M3Nx0V+oWCnCINPPYL1Pxu0Ob575PZS4DBo1hQE7tozljWxT >>>>>>>>>>>> avNg== >>>>>>>>>>>> ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; >>>>>>>>>>>> spf=pass (google.com: domain of j.vank...@grnacres.net >>>>>>>>>>>> designates 64.68.200.34 as permitted sender) >>>>>>>>>>>> smtp.mailfrom=j.vank...@grnacres.net >>>>>>>>>>>> Return-Path: <j.vank...@grnacres.net> >>>>>>>>>>>> Received: from mailout.easymail.ca (mailout.easymail.ca. >>>>>>>>>>>> [64.68.200.34]) >>>>>>>>>>>> by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id >>>>>>>>>>>> p5-20020a1709066a8500b008d490a104b2si49101ejr.523.2023.03.10.07.43.02 >>>>>>>>>>>> for <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 >>>>>>>>>>>> bits=256/256); >>>>>>>>>>>> Fri, 10 Mar 2023 07:43:02 -0800 (PST) >>>>>>>>>>>> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of j.vank...@grnacres.net >>>>>>>>>>>> designates 64.68.200.34 as permitted sender) >>>>>>>>>>>> client-ip=64.68.200.34; >>>>>>>>>>>> Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; >>>>>>>>>>>> spf=pass (google.com: domain of j.vank...@grnacres.net >>>>>>>>>>>> designates 64.68.200.34 as permitted sender) >>>>>>>>>>>> smtp.mailfrom=j.vank...@grnacres.net >>>>>>>>>>>> Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by >>>>>>>>>>>> mailout.easymail.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 738E268D1A for >>>>>>>>>>>> <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 15:43:01 +0000 (UTC) >>>>>>>>>>>> X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at emo09-pco.easydns.vpn >>>>>>>>>>>> Received: from mailout.easymail.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost >>>>>>>>>>>> (emo09-pco.easydns.vpn [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with >>>>>>>>>>>> ESMTP id csxoJG_y5IgL for <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>; Fri, 10 Mar >>>>>>>>>>>> 2023 15:43:01 +0000 (UTC) >>>>>>>>>>>> Received: from [192.168.2.100] (047-224-130-187.res.spectrum.com >>>>>>>>>>>> [47.224.130.187]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher >>>>>>>>>>>> TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) >>>>>>>>>>>> key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) >>>>>>>>>>>> server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by >>>>>>>>>>>> mailout.easymail.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 03E3A68C4C for >>>>>>>>>>>> <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 15:43:00 +0000 (UTC) >>>>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: <7b07154d-8e71-69fc-f76a-bcfb5ec52...@grnacres.net> >>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 07:42:59 -0800 >>>>>>>>>>>> MIME-Version: 1.0 >>>>>>>>>>>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) >>>>>>>>>>>> Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0 >>>>>>>>>>>> To: thatoneguyst...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>> Content-Language: en-US >>>>>>>>>>>> From: Jan-GAMs <j.vank...@grnacres.net> >>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: hellody >>>>>>>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed >>>>>>>>>>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 12:47 PM Steve Jones < >>>>>>>>>>>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> nope, this gmail account is standard free account. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Im probably special cause all my communications get routed >>>>>>>>>>>>> through the FBI servers for my online antics >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 12:33 PM Jan-GAMs < >>>>>>>>>>>>> j.vank...@grnacres.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it was a test. Only the ones addressed to you went through. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The others tested, bounced. Your address is different somehow. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned your gmail is a paid-for account, the others that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bounced were >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the free-gmail type accounts one gets by logging into google. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The emails >>>>>>>>>>>>>> were sent from mail.com and from my own business accounts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The business ones went through and the mail.com ones bounced >>>>>>>>>>>>>> except for the one sent to you. I picked 4 gmail addresses and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sent them >>>>>>>>>>>>>> out, all of the ones sent from the mail.com got bounced >>>>>>>>>>>>>> except yours. What makes you so special? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/23 09:14, Steve Jones wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> i got your spam emails this morning >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 11:04 AM <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apparently nobody on gmail has noticed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:* AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On Behalf Of *Jan-GAMs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, March 10, 2023 10:32 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] mail servers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All mail.com users cannot send you email. How many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other's are blocked as well? Oblivion, must be sweet. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/9/23 20:14, Darin Steffl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gmail is the best. Been using them for our business since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012. Virtually no issues at all aside from a handful of short >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outages over >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the last 11 years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's hands off, costs very little, and I've NEVER needed to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contact them for support. We also use Google drive and their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> office apps in the cloud. We don't store any files locally at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all. All >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business docs are at Google and they're safe there and they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handle the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backups. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see any advantage to hosting local email on your own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> server. It's not worth your time. My time is worth $550/hr >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> roughly when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking at net profit so spending even one hour a year trying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to manage or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix my own email server would cost me more than what I pay >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Google. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We're grandfathered in and think we get 10 free users for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gsuite and I pay to upgrade storage to 100gb on 2-3 users so we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay less >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than $60 a year to Google for everything. Dirt cheap and great >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> peace mind. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is relating to our internal business use. For customer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email, we never offered it and never will. Just recommend a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free Gmail >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> account and go live your best life not having to support email. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2023, 8:47 PM Steve Jones < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> O365 handles SMTP relay for scanners and such really well, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we just dealt with it a bunch. authenticated IP. I dont scan to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a flatbed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because the Edsel was before my time :-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 1:03 PM Chuck McCown via AF < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> af@af.afmug.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I prefer to have it in house for the 10-20 email addresses >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it serves for employees and other business email addresses. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is free >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that way and we don’t have to worry about anything else. But >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason the server hangs and needs to get rebooted, usually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time each day. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Google got difficult, especially for email chains and other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things so we stopped using them some time ago. For example, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our scanner >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stopped being able to send emails due to something gmail did. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:* Steve Jones >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 9, 2023 11:24 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] mail servers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How much is your time worth. The free internal server is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> costing you this. We are still using rackspace for subscriber >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mail and our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> office emails since its same domain and a pita to set up split >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> routing for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the mail. The cost of our mail is covered by the folks who have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dropped >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> service but wanted to keep their email, we actually make a tidy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> profit to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cover any administrative stuff. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for my business I use google. 6 bucks a month per user. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way I look at it is if im not making 6 bucks per guy a month I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have bigger >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems than my email. Im a nerd, 20 years ago dicking around >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with email >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> servers would have been a blast. but now its like maintaining a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> battery >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> powered inverter just so i can still use my corded drill. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can, it will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work, its not that complicated, but its nonetheless a dumb >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> waste of time. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dealing with hosting email servers is a total waste of any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> resources unless your monetizing it. too large an attack vector >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2023 at 10:18 AM Chuck McCown via AF < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> af@af.afmug.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is only for our own company email. No customers on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
