On 22/04/2016 11:02 PM, Mimiko wrote: > On 22.04.2016 11:59, Gene Heskett wrote: >> What you Mimiko, should be doing is using your own ISP's mail server, >> which on this mailing list I am, by setting up your own email agent. >> There are quite a few available for linux. > > I don't want to use my ISP's mail account. Its limited. It can be > blocked. I can switch to another ISP.
Nobody should have to suffer ISP mail server limitations and implications; far too many don't care about using TLS on the servers and people re-use passwords with passwords being sent in plain text using plain POP. Nobody should have to suffer using Google mail servers either. There are alternatives that work, the best I've found over the years is to simply run my own mail server where, I believe, on the whole, I can make it work the way I expect it should work. > I could setup a mail server, but why should I bother to set it up on my > linux-like router, or on my windows desktop... There are other services if you can't manage it yourself for whatever reasons you see fit. > This google's "functionality" is a minor problem. It's Google's main "functionality",, of which it makes it's fortunes predominantly, that is one of the greatest problems of the Internet these days; take Yahoo for instance, they are a data company that has been offered for sale (not sure where that is at yet), the value is all in the data [user profiling for starters], not in anything else Yahoo is doing. Everybody is being scroogled, no matter what major service you use. Add to that the malvertising coming through flash advert systems and you get the idea that too much is broken. Don't use Google more than you need to, don't use Yahoo more than you need to. Don't use Lookout... (Outlook in whatever guise is still Lookout to me). I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea. Reliability was another major reason for me using my own mail server; the ISPs ones were just far too unreliable. Oh and the https idea of strict transport security; Google, Micro$oft and others are trying to bring in a very broken version of that for SMTP. Why the hell can't people simply respect SPF at the very least, and if or when that is finally used to lessen spam from unauthorized senders, well, then they can look at DNSSEC and other options that don't destroy SMTP. [1]. Every domain may or may not require http/https, it may or may not require MX usage.... to link the two so strongly in such a broken way is ludicrous. And yes, my ISP needs to transport bits, just bits and it should do so without discrimination of what those bits are; it should also do so without stealing information from those bits for tracking or other purposes. Just transport the bits, nothing more, nothing less. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-margolis-smtp-sts-00 -- NB: THIS IS A COMPLETE SCREW UP! Cheers AndrewM
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
