4 ms·
>Google has more of a history of this, but even there it’s not core to their strategy—they might be harming SMTP but they’re not going to kill it[...] Well, di
by witrak 4y ago
>Google has more of a history of this, but even there it’s not core to their strategy—they might be harming SMTP but they’re not going to kill it[...]
Well, did you have an email server for your family, friends, and your small business? And someday your friend or customer using it reported that there's no incoming mail from Google nor their email to Gmail addresses aren't delivered. You check the reason and see that for Google - "because they fight spam" - your IP address seems to have a reputation not good enough for accepting email from your server.
No discussion, no reason revealed, no way to appeal, no human on the other side, and nothing can be done. Of course, you can outsource mail delivery to one of the big email operators - big enough that Google doesn't try to block them even if they allow for spamming.
This way the very idea of email as a common, freely available service is strangled step by step for years.
- dasil003 4y agoRight, that's what I was referring to. See also XMPP. But at the end of the day, Google's goal is not to kill distributed email. The risk reward in terms of anti-trust simply isn't there. The value from the data they get from onboarding accounts is already superscalar since they only need one recipient from each message in order to get the data. Therefore its fair to call it Embrace/Extend if we squint a bit, but there's no Extinguish play for Gmail (just collateral damage of spam control).