You can't spoof SPF or DKIM unless you also have access to a domain's dns records.
On Sun, Mar 12, 2023, 2:17 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
