6 ms·

> Gmail rejects outgoing email from most home ISPs The configuration must go with the flow, for example it's recommended to at least configure SPF or DKIM. For

> Gmail rejects outgoing email from most home ISPs The configuration must go with the flow, for example it's recommended to at least configure SPF or DKIM. For each E-Mail a score will be calculated and both make it better, there's also DMARC for further improvement. In fact not only Gmail does this, most non-trivial mail setups do inbound filtering. Nowadays there are even Docker containers for that. Not saying that E-Mail is great but automation will get one really far and there doesn't seem to be a decentralized alternative for that yet. (Obviously there are centralized alternatives; and of course there's XMPP)

cjbprime 8y ago
None of these suggestions make sense. DKIM, SPF, and Docker are all irrelevant to whether Gmail will accept mail that is relayed to them through a broadband IP address. (They won't.)
- tyler_larson 8y ago
  The idea of SMTPing email out from your home ISP turned out to be problematic once spam became a business model. Gmail's not the only place that categorically won't trust it. You need a mail server. You can run it yourself if you're in to that sort of thing, but you can't run it off a residential/consumer uplink. Sorry, this one's non-negotiable. Then your home server authenticates to your mail server as a client, and send email through your mail server. Your mail server is recorded as the IP address of origin, not your home address. MTAs are already designed to do this with nearly zero effort on your part, so you don't have to change your workflow, just your config file. Don't want to pay for a mail server? Good news! There's like a gazillion services that actually do this for free. Gmail actually turns out to be one of them. Don't want to have to use Oauth? Good news! Gmail's not the only mail service. There's ten billion others.
  - xg15 8y ago
    > Then your home server authenticates to your mail server as a client, and send email through your mail server. But then, why can't I do that with Git?
    - xte 8y ago
      Mh, because cars are about moving on roads and boats on water? Git is a dCVS, so a software to store source code tracking history and users, not a communication platform, mails on contrary are communication platform. If you want something like Fossil (dVCS with built-in webserver with a mini-site for bugtracking etc) integrated with something like ZeroNet well, we do not have anything like than and yes, it can be an interested thing, far more interested than IPFS monsters etc.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    > Sorry, this one's non-negotiable. It totally should be. If you use SPF and DKIM, that should override distrust of IP addresses. If your domain has good reputation and SPF and DKIM prove that you are authorized to send using your domain, then only the reputation of your domain should be considered (and affected) when processing the inbound email. > Then your home server authenticates to your mail server as a client, and send email through your mail server. That just overcomplicates things in that you now have to maintain two mail servers. Just set up a tunnel to route the public addresses of your server to your home server, then you can send directly to whereever using static addresses. Also has the advantage that the TLS is terminated on your own hardware, rather than on systems with potentially questionable security of some cheap hosting provider, so less trust in proper security and data protection practices of the hosting provider is required. > Don't want to pay for a mail server? Good news! There's like a gazillion services that actually do this for free. Gmail actually turns out to be one of them. Giving power to Google both over your data and over the direction of email in general is not free. That's the one thing everyone should finally grasp. Using Facebook isn't free, using GitHub isn't free, using Gmail isn't free, ...
    - zaarn 8y ago
      >It totally should be. If you use SPF and DKIM, that should override distrust of IP addresses. There are several IPs that are completely banned on my firewall because they send shitloads of spam over dozens of domains. And some IPs are just inherently not trustworthy (Tor exit nodes, North Korean IPs, etc.) Everyone can setup a SPF and DKIM record on their domain. It's not hard. IPs have reputation and you better deal with it because most sysadmins on your receiving end won't deal with any special snowflake configuration. This isn't exclusive to Gmail, this is basically any mail service and server out there.
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
        > There are several IPs that are completely banned on my firewall because they send shitloads of spam over dozens of domains. I understand that that is the case. I said that it shouldn't be the case and why. So, what's your point? > And some IPs are just inherently not trustworthy (Tor exit nodes, North Korean IPs, etc.) Noone is saying you should be trusting those IPs. I said domain trust should override IP distrust. So, again, what is your point? > Everyone can setup a SPF and DKIM record on their domain. It's not hard. Which is obviously the premise of using them to override IP distrust? So ... what is your point? > IPs have reputation and you better deal with it because most sysadmins on your receiving end won't deal with any special snowflake configuration. I think I wouldn't write "It totally should be" if that were the current reality, would I? So ... what is your point in explaining what I am obviously aware of? Also, you might be surprised, but "special snowflake configuration" is how every change starts. So, if your argument were to be taken seriously, we should never have introduced SPF, because the first person to use SPF had a very special snowflake configuration indeed. > This isn't exclusive to Gmail, this is basically any mail service and server out there. Erm, yeah, thanks for repeating half a dozen times the obvious premise of my comment.
- blablabla123 8y ago
  Sorry, I misread that one. I thought you meant self-hosted. Just out of curiosity, have you tried or have heard of someone who tried? I mean nothing stops one from pointing a Domain to a Home ISP IP address and creating DKIM and SPF entries for that. I kind of doubt that Google can determine with high accuracy whether an IP is from a Consumer ISP or not, especially when it comes to small ISPs - which might be the most interesting, when already going so far... ;-)
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    There are dynamic IP DNS blocklists and they are usually pretty accurate. Also, usually, your reverse name is pretty telling with home ISPs. Sure, you might be lucky with a small ISP, but then, with a small ISP, chances are they wouldn't mind giving you "static" addresses anyway. Though indeed it would be an interesting experiment how domain and IP reputation actually interact at large email providers.
  - zrail 8y ago
    Consumer ISPs voluntarily submit their IP ranges to the block lists. They don’t like spam either.
  - TheCycoONE 8y ago
    I have a home mail server and GMail accepts mail from it no problem. Outlook tends to drop my mail in the recipient's Junk folder but I haven't encountered any outright rejection. I do have SPF, DKIM, DMARC, and rDNS setup.

cjbprime 8y ago

None of these suggestions make sense. DKIM, SPF, and Docker are all irrelevant to whether Gmail will accept mail that is relayed to them through a broadband IP address. (They won't.)

tyler_larson 8y ago
The idea of SMTPing email out from your home ISP turned out to be problematic once spam became a business model. Gmail's not the only place that categorically won't trust it. You need a mail server. You can run it yourself if you're in to that sort of thing, but you can't run it off a residential/consumer uplink. Sorry, this one's non-negotiable. Then your home server authenticates to your mail server as a client, and send email through your mail server. Your mail server is recorded as the IP address of origin, not your home address. MTAs are already designed to do this with nearly zero effort on your part, so you don't have to change your workflow, just your config file. Don't want to pay for a mail server? Good news! There's like a gazillion services that actually do this for free. Gmail actually turns out to be one of them. Don't want to have to use Oauth? Good news! Gmail's not the only mail service. There's ten billion others.
- xg15 8y ago
  > Then your home server authenticates to your mail server as a client, and send email through your mail server. But then, why can't I do that with Git?
  - xte 8y ago
    Mh, because cars are about moving on roads and boats on water? Git is a dCVS, so a software to store source code tracking history and users, not a communication platform, mails on contrary are communication platform. If you want something like Fossil (dVCS with built-in webserver with a mini-site for bugtracking etc) integrated with something like ZeroNet well, we do not have anything like than and yes, it can be an interested thing, far more interested than IPFS monsters etc.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  > Sorry, this one's non-negotiable. It totally should be. If you use SPF and DKIM, that should override distrust of IP addresses. If your domain has good reputation and SPF and DKIM prove that you are authorized to send using your domain, then only the reputation of your domain should be considered (and affected) when processing the inbound email. > Then your home server authenticates to your mail server as a client, and send email through your mail server. That just overcomplicates things in that you now have to maintain two mail servers. Just set up a tunnel to route the public addresses of your server to your home server, then you can send directly to whereever using static addresses. Also has the advantage that the TLS is terminated on your own hardware, rather than on systems with potentially questionable security of some cheap hosting provider, so less trust in proper security and data protection practices of the hosting provider is required. > Don't want to pay for a mail server? Good news! There's like a gazillion services that actually do this for free. Gmail actually turns out to be one of them. Giving power to Google both over your data and over the direction of email in general is not free. That's the one thing everyone should finally grasp. Using Facebook isn't free, using GitHub isn't free, using Gmail isn't free, ...
  - zaarn 8y ago
    >It totally should be. If you use SPF and DKIM, that should override distrust of IP addresses. There are several IPs that are completely banned on my firewall because they send shitloads of spam over dozens of domains. And some IPs are just inherently not trustworthy (Tor exit nodes, North Korean IPs, etc.) Everyone can setup a SPF and DKIM record on their domain. It's not hard. IPs have reputation and you better deal with it because most sysadmins on your receiving end won't deal with any special snowflake configuration. This isn't exclusive to Gmail, this is basically any mail service and server out there.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
      > There are several IPs that are completely banned on my firewall because they send shitloads of spam over dozens of domains. I understand that that is the case. I said that it shouldn't be the case and why. So, what's your point? > And some IPs are just inherently not trustworthy (Tor exit nodes, North Korean IPs, etc.) Noone is saying you should be trusting those IPs. I said domain trust should override IP distrust. So, again, what is your point? > Everyone can setup a SPF and DKIM record on their domain. It's not hard. Which is obviously the premise of using them to override IP distrust? So ... what is your point? > IPs have reputation and you better deal with it because most sysadmins on your receiving end won't deal with any special snowflake configuration. I think I wouldn't write "It totally should be" if that were the current reality, would I? So ... what is your point in explaining what I am obviously aware of? Also, you might be surprised, but "special snowflake configuration" is how every change starts. So, if your argument were to be taken seriously, we should never have introduced SPF, because the first person to use SPF had a very special snowflake configuration indeed. > This isn't exclusive to Gmail, this is basically any mail service and server out there. Erm, yeah, thanks for repeating half a dozen times the obvious premise of my comment.
blablabla123 8y ago
Sorry, I misread that one. I thought you meant self-hosted. Just out of curiosity, have you tried or have heard of someone who tried? I mean nothing stops one from pointing a Domain to a Home ISP IP address and creating DKIM and SPF entries for that. I kind of doubt that Google can determine with high accuracy whether an IP is from a Consumer ISP or not, especially when it comes to small ISPs - which might be the most interesting, when already going so far... ;-)
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  There are dynamic IP DNS blocklists and they are usually pretty accurate. Also, usually, your reverse name is pretty telling with home ISPs. Sure, you might be lucky with a small ISP, but then, with a small ISP, chances are they wouldn't mind giving you "static" addresses anyway. Though indeed it would be an interesting experiment how domain and IP reputation actually interact at large email providers.
- zrail 8y ago
  Consumer ISPs voluntarily submit their IP ranges to the block lists. They don’t like spam either.
- TheCycoONE 8y ago
  I have a home mail server and GMail accepts mail from it no problem. Outlook tends to drop my mail in the recipient's Junk folder but I haven't encountered any outright rejection. I do have SPF, DKIM, DMARC, and rDNS setup.