3 ms·

These aren't requirements. Gmail is a mail client. What it is doing is adding warnings. Without SPF/DKIM you can't be authenticated. Google is showing the u

by Navarr 11y ago

These aren't requirements. Gmail is a mail client. What it is doing is adding warnings. Without SPF/DKIM you can't be authenticated. Google is showing the user that they cannot verify the sender. Without TLS email is sent in the clear. Google is showing the user that sensitive information will be visible when sent over the network. You can run your server fine without this, but users will be warned that you're not following best practices. It is not Gmail's fault that you're late to best practices.

mynameisvlad 11y ago
> These aren't requirements Well, except they are. Before, yes, they were just best practices. It was great if you had them but by no means required and didn't really impact your experience much if at all. With this switch, though, they became requirements to getting a "normal" experience in Gmail. Even having a warning is a degraded experience at this point.
- abalos 11y ago
  I'd actually consider that an improved experience. Sure, the sender using the improperly created personal mailbox will be inconvenienced if people ask about it. However, the actual user of gmail benefits from this.
- chii 11y ago
  I don't think there's anything wrong with gmail upping the game. It's not like they are using tech that no one else can get. If I ran a restaurant that provided extra services, that doesn't stop anyone else from opening a restaurant and provide similar levels of service.
lmm 11y ago
No, best practices are to avoid using any of that and trusting anyone's servers. S/MIME if you trust the CA system, PGP if you don't. Supporting either of those would be a real step forward for privacy - but of course if Google can't snoop on your email then it's not helping them target their ads.
- packetslave 11y ago
  but of course if Google can't snoop on your email then it's not helping them offer you a high-quality email service for free by showing you (hopefully) relevant and unobtrusive ads Fixed that for you.

by Navarr 11y ago

mynameisvlad 11y ago

> These aren't requirements Well, except they are. Before, yes, they were just best practices. It was great if you had them but by no means required and didn't really impact your experience much if at all. With this switch, though, they became requirements to getting a "normal" experience in Gmail. Even having a warning is a degraded experience at this point.

abalos 11y ago
I'd actually consider that an improved experience. Sure, the sender using the improperly created personal mailbox will be inconvenienced if people ask about it. However, the actual user of gmail benefits from this.
chii 11y ago
I don't think there's anything wrong with gmail upping the game. It's not like they are using tech that no one else can get. If I ran a restaurant that provided extra services, that doesn't stop anyone else from opening a restaurant and provide similar levels of service.

lmm 11y ago

No, best practices are to avoid using any of that and trusting anyone's servers. S/MIME if you trust the CA system, PGP if you don't. Supporting either of those would be a real step forward for privacy - but of course if Google can't snoop on your email then it's not helping them target their ads.

packetslave 11y ago
but of course if Google can't snoop on your email then it's not helping them offer you a high-quality email service for free by showing you (hopefully) relevant and unobtrusive ads Fixed that for you.