Re: [mailop] Gmail Dynamic Email / Impact on Email Ecosystem
Heho, > Brandon Long via mailop > https://developers.google.com/gmail/ampemail is the Google developer > information about dynamic email, that link was about controlling the > content with Google Workspace. Thanks for sharing, this has some rather interesting examples. Do I need to be specially vetted to send AMP email, or could I--as long as it is compliant to the standard--send one myself, i.e., without being a registered newsletter sender? The AMP page is somewhat unclear there. > Brandon Long via mailop > The standardization is via AMP, docs at https://amp.dev/about/email/ > and a pretty short list of other providers who support it. I acknowledge that mail's UX is currently 'fresh and outstanding' and something will have to change. Still, change is naturally driven by those who do, which--in this case--is the group of organizations around AMP. However, I'd argue that changes will be aligned with the needs of these organizations in terms of providing consistent services to their customer base under their business model [1], which naturally inflicts on how these systems are being designed. This also inflicts on the governance of venues for organizing and coordinating such changes, as for example AMP, implementing a model that allows decision making to follow operational needs [2]. And, to be clear, I am not claiming that this is a google-specific thing, or try to pick on google, but instead argue that any rational actor with that scale of operations will ultimately operate in this way to match its objectives. > Brandon Long via mailop > The death of email will come from outside the eco-system, not from > individual attempts to extend it. I wouldn't necessarily call AMP an individual attempt, given the market share of some of the involved parties. Also, I was referring to the death of XMPP. If I remember correctly, XMPP's rise and fall actually started with major players [3,4] committing to XMPP federation. However, over time, and with needs, roadmaps, and available features in clients diverging more and more, federation was discontinued by Facebook and Google [5]. At this point, the role of others being less sharing and more consuming--Page explicitly calling out Microsoft here [6]--certainly should also be mentioned. What ultimately broke the neck of XMPP was then its ill suitedness to the evolving User Experience on smartphones. With its complicated protocol, and federation needs--the classical finding others problem--it was simply no match for centralized services using simple but usable identifiers (phone numbers), even if they may have been using XMPP 'under the hood'. That then is what gave us the current zoo of messengers we all love and like (if someone wants to further discuss this point, please feel free to write me on What'sApp, Signal, Telegram, Threema, Facebook Messenger, Skype, Skype4Bussiness/Lync, Google Meet, reddit, or via netcat on tcp/2342). So, in the end, the dynamics around new features adopted by a few players representing a major subset of the ecosystem can have a long-lasting impact that may ultimately interact with, e.g., the deliverability discussions we regularly have. (Most recently, tightened SPF requirements by Google, and I am not claiming that _that_ move was necessarily a bad one; But one with consequences to consider that are not strictly technical in nature, but cross influence technology, i.e., in this case, mail.) With best regards, Tobias [1] https://doing-stupid-things.as59645.net/burning/world/resillience/2022/06/30/propositions-part-4.html [2] Page 78, Sec. VII.E.6, Point 206 ff https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/20201216%20COMPLAINT_REDACTED.pdf [3] https://googletalk.blogspot.com/2006/01/xmpp-federation.html [4] https://www.facebook.com/notes/10160197317616729/ [5] https://blogs.fsfe.org/hugo/2013/05/google-talk-discontinued-will-google-keep-its-promise-and-give-xmpp-users-a-way-out/ [6] https://www.theverge.com/2013/5/15/4334242/larry-page-to-tech-world-being-negative-is-not-how-we-make-progress ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Gmail spam scoring via IPv6 different than IPv4?
On 12/08/2022 17:22, Jesse Hathaway via mailop wrote: > Back in 2013[1] we changed our mail config to force MX lookups for gmail > to only use IPv4 addresses. We made these change after hearing reports > of higher spam scoring when sending mail via IPv6. Would anyone from > Google be able to comment as to whether forcing IPv4 is still needed? > Yours kindly, Jesse Hathaway My experience in the past is that because Google insist on a successful matching reverse DNS lookup for IPv6, it will randomly permanently reject email for a temporary error. It looks like Google are now doing this for IPv4 too but I don't know if they've fixed it to handle temporary DNS errors properly. The other general problem is that your server's reputation will probably be different for each address and suddenly swap between IPv6 and IPv4 on a retry. Ideally random outgoing address selection across all IP address families should be used to avoid this but Exim can't do that. -- Simon Arlott ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Gmail spam scoring via IPv6 different than IPv4?
Hi, Dňa 12. augusta 2022 17:24:51 UTC používateľ Michael Peddemors via mailop napísal: >* Turn off ipv6 for MTA->MTA mail. (I know the IPv6 evangelists scream when I >say this, but email operators just want it to work) Slowly we work towards >first MTU->MTA over IPv6, I think we will see IPv4->IPv4 for server to server >communication for some time yet. Interesting, all mails from (and to) google (as it is in question) are coming via IPv6 to my MTA. The same eg. for mailop and other IPv6 aware sites... regards Slavko ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] [E] Re: Gmail spam scoring via IPv6 different than IPv4?
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 11:01 AM Michael Peddemors via mailop < mailop@mailop.org> wrote: > Pop Quiz.. how many recursive DNS queries are supposed to be > in SPF max? > 42? - Marcel ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Gmail spam scoring via IPv6 different than IPv4?
Addendum: It's amazing how many billion dollar companies can't even get SPF right.. Pop Quiz.. how many recursive DNS queries are supposed to be in SPF max? On 2022-08-12 10:24, Michael Peddemors via mailop wrote: And frankly, for most people it is the easiest solution. So many time we tell people, turn off IPv6 and all their problems go away, but asking them to set up all the extra layers such as SPF, DKIM etc, and to do it right.. well.. in practice, people have better things to do.. We of course still say: * Sane PTR, only a single one unless you are forced to have two (small subnet DNS responsibility) * Only a couple of A records, keep the list small (UDP vs retry to TCP0 * Implement a sane SPF record (Amazing how many people have trouble with this, or simply add everyone.. if you include all of google, amazon, and microsoft, why bother having an SPF record ;) * Turn off ipv6 for MTA->MTA mail. (I know the IPv6 evangelists scream when I say this, but email operators just want it to work) Slowly we work towards first MTU->MTA over IPv6, I think we will see IPv4->IPv4 for server to server communication for some time yet. Let's not try to make it too difficult for the little guys, we should be encouraging more people operating email servers, not making it so difficult that they throw their hands in the air, and move to Gmail.. (of course, that might be the plan all along ;) On 2022-08-12 09:47, Al Iverson via mailop wrote: Hey Jesse, This is sort of controversial and you'll get some people saying very vehemently that you should never do this ever, for various reasons of interoperability or strong opinions about how the internet works. But instead, here's my take from an operational perspective... I personally would keep forcing mail to Gmail over IPv4, and I do indeed do this on my own hobbyist systems. Every time I spin up a new VPS and forget this, I notice it rather quickly because of bouncing mail. Not only are they quicker to block IPv6 mail overall (IMHO), they also are more likely to block IPv6 mail from IPs without rDNS, and mail that lacks either SPF or DKIM authentication. Their filters are evolving and it feels as though their IPv4 blocking is catching up a bit -- more likely to block unauthenticated IPv4 mail today versus a year or two ago, but that doesn't really mean it suddenly became easier to send over IPv6. I blogged about this a couple year ago - nothing you don't already know, really - https://www.spamresource.com/2020/11/honestly-dont-send-to-gmail-over-ipv6.html - but recently that article got linked to on Reddit and a bunch of nerds made noise that I don't know what I'm talking about and that they can get mail to Gmail over IPv6 just fine. So, YMMV. (My point is that it's not impossible, but it is annoying and that it has exacting, but unclear requirements.) Cheers, Al Iverson On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 11:26 AM Jesse Hathaway via mailop wrote: Back in 2013[1] we changed our mail config to force MX lookups for gmail to only use IPv4 addresses. We made these change after hearing reports of higher spam scoring when sending mail via IPv6. Would anyone from Google be able to comment as to whether forcing IPv4 is still needed? Yours kindly, Jesse Hathaway [1]: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/operations/puppet/+/79753 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop -- "Catch the Magic of Linux..." Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc. Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca "LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd. 604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Gmail spam scoring via IPv6 different than IPv4?
And frankly, for most people it is the easiest solution. So many time we tell people, turn off IPv6 and all their problems go away, but asking them to set up all the extra layers such as SPF, DKIM etc, and to do it right.. well.. in practice, people have better things to do.. We of course still say: * Sane PTR, only a single one unless you are forced to have two (small subnet DNS responsibility) * Only a couple of A records, keep the list small (UDP vs retry to TCP0 * Implement a sane SPF record (Amazing how many people have trouble with this, or simply add everyone.. if you include all of google, amazon, and microsoft, why bother having an SPF record ;) * Turn off ipv6 for MTA->MTA mail. (I know the IPv6 evangelists scream when I say this, but email operators just want it to work) Slowly we work towards first MTU->MTA over IPv6, I think we will see IPv4->IPv4 for server to server communication for some time yet. Let's not try to make it too difficult for the little guys, we should be encouraging more people operating email servers, not making it so difficult that they throw their hands in the air, and move to Gmail.. (of course, that might be the plan all along ;) On 2022-08-12 09:47, Al Iverson via mailop wrote: Hey Jesse, This is sort of controversial and you'll get some people saying very vehemently that you should never do this ever, for various reasons of interoperability or strong opinions about how the internet works. But instead, here's my take from an operational perspective... I personally would keep forcing mail to Gmail over IPv4, and I do indeed do this on my own hobbyist systems. Every time I spin up a new VPS and forget this, I notice it rather quickly because of bouncing mail. Not only are they quicker to block IPv6 mail overall (IMHO), they also are more likely to block IPv6 mail from IPs without rDNS, and mail that lacks either SPF or DKIM authentication. Their filters are evolving and it feels as though their IPv4 blocking is catching up a bit -- more likely to block unauthenticated IPv4 mail today versus a year or two ago, but that doesn't really mean it suddenly became easier to send over IPv6. I blogged about this a couple year ago - nothing you don't already know, really - https://www.spamresource.com/2020/11/honestly-dont-send-to-gmail-over-ipv6.html - but recently that article got linked to on Reddit and a bunch of nerds made noise that I don't know what I'm talking about and that they can get mail to Gmail over IPv6 just fine. So, YMMV. (My point is that it's not impossible, but it is annoying and that it has exacting, but unclear requirements.) Cheers, Al Iverson On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 11:26 AM Jesse Hathaway via mailop wrote: Back in 2013[1] we changed our mail config to force MX lookups for gmail to only use IPv4 addresses. We made these change after hearing reports of higher spam scoring when sending mail via IPv6. Would anyone from Google be able to comment as to whether forcing IPv4 is still needed? Yours kindly, Jesse Hathaway [1]: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/operations/puppet/+/79753 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop -- "Catch the Magic of Linux..." Michael Peddemors, President/CEO LinuxMagic Inc. Visit us at http://www.linuxmagic.com @linuxmagic A Wizard IT Company - For More Info http://www.wizard.ca "LinuxMagic" a Registered TradeMark of Wizard Tower TechnoServices Ltd. 604-682-0300 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada This email and any electronic data contained are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent those of the company. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Gmail spam scoring via IPv6 different than IPv4?
Hey Jesse, This is sort of controversial and you'll get some people saying very vehemently that you should never do this ever, for various reasons of interoperability or strong opinions about how the internet works. But instead, here's my take from an operational perspective... I personally would keep forcing mail to Gmail over IPv4, and I do indeed do this on my own hobbyist systems. Every time I spin up a new VPS and forget this, I notice it rather quickly because of bouncing mail. Not only are they quicker to block IPv6 mail overall (IMHO), they also are more likely to block IPv6 mail from IPs without rDNS, and mail that lacks either SPF or DKIM authentication. Their filters are evolving and it feels as though their IPv4 blocking is catching up a bit -- more likely to block unauthenticated IPv4 mail today versus a year or two ago, but that doesn't really mean it suddenly became easier to send over IPv6. I blogged about this a couple year ago - nothing you don't already know, really - https://www.spamresource.com/2020/11/honestly-dont-send-to-gmail-over-ipv6.html - but recently that article got linked to on Reddit and a bunch of nerds made noise that I don't know what I'm talking about and that they can get mail to Gmail over IPv6 just fine. So, YMMV. (My point is that it's not impossible, but it is annoying and that it has exacting, but unclear requirements.) Cheers, Al Iverson On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 11:26 AM Jesse Hathaway via mailop wrote: > > Back in 2013[1] we changed our mail config to force MX lookups for gmail > to only use IPv4 addresses. We made these change after hearing reports > of higher spam scoring when sending mail via IPv6. Would anyone from > Google be able to comment as to whether forcing IPv4 is still needed? > Yours kindly, Jesse Hathaway > > > [1]: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/operations/puppet/+/79753 > ___ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop -- Al Iverson / Deliverability blogging at www.spamresource.com Subscribe to the weekly newsletter at wombatmail.com/sr.cgi DNS Tools at xnnd.com / (312) 725-0130 / Chicago (Central Time) ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
[mailop] Gmail spam scoring via IPv6 different than IPv4?
Back in 2013[1] we changed our mail config to force MX lookups for gmail to only use IPv4 addresses. We made these change after hearing reports of higher spam scoring when sending mail via IPv6. Would anyone from Google be able to comment as to whether forcing IPv4 is still needed? Yours kindly, Jesse Hathaway [1]: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/operations/puppet/+/79753 ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] Gmail Dynamic Email / Impact on Email Ecosystem
They seem to be a text/x-amp-html, and require a text/html or text/plain fallback, so other clients would simply use the fallback. I think many of us have seen the "fallback" from text/html to text/plain. "Sorry your e-mail client can't display HTML", well it can but I kinda prefer text first and you just sent me useless garbage. The following is not directly related to your letter, just the topic. I do understand the need for something better than the inconsistent (and thus difficult) text/html we have now. Static-only AMP might even fit the bill, but static letters do not seem to be the goal at the moment. Unfortunately I don't see anyone but the giants succeeding in pushing for a new widely-supported content type either. Just looking at the deployment of other email improvements. I've long yearned for something like text/restructured or text/markdown that is trivial to convert to both text and HTML, but looks nicer if natively rendered and is easy to manually type out. Anyways, point being that if we don't want AMP there should be an equally attractive alternative widely deployed. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] [E] Re: Gmail Dynamic Email / Impact on Email Ecosystem
Yeah, just like any website can "change". I encourage you to dive a little deeper into the capabilities (and non-capabilities) for that matter ;-) Sure, and those of us who have had to deal with taking down phishing that is very selective know the pain. That pain shouldn't exist in emails themselves. Taking Gmail's other feature as well, confidential emails. YIKES Imagine this scenario: "I got this letter, it looks very suspicious" "Can you forward it to me?" "I can't it won't let me, says something about being marked confidential" "Okay just show it to me then" "I opened it again and it has changed" No. Not the MTA anyway. It depends where you're doing your filtering. Yes, and horses are sufficiently fast and 64kb ought to be enough for everybody ;-) Just send links if you need to display dynamic content, that's what links are for. Alternatively implement a diff scheme that would allow building the end result. Messages already delivered shouldn't change without either clear indication or user preference that they may. Even though I loathe "you just got a reply to your comment"-emails, they're better than ones I might open years from now, potentially broken. ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
