4 ms·

It doesn't really matter if it's "a smart idea", it already happens and you have no control over it. A simple search for setting up your own mail-server is just

It doesn't really matter if it's "a smart idea", it already happens and you have no control over it. A simple search for setting up your own mail-server is just a search for people who have done that saying "don't ever setup a personal mail server because it's guaranteed to be blacklisted". Spam has lead email to basically become this closed ecosystem. If you don't use one of the already established major email providers, ISP's or domain name registrars the reliability of email hits the floor.

overbroad 14y ago
While I understand your sentiment, I respectfully disagree that it does not matter if it's a smart idea. Because if it is not a smart idea then that means we can do better. One of the projects I'm working on solves the "closed ecosystem" problem. The use of the term "closed ecosystem" is ironic because it seems to me that the "open" nature of email receiving (not sending) is what leads to the spam problem. In other words, I do not see the problem as the fact that people can send mass quantities of junk email. I see the problem as the fact that daemons accept and deliver mail from anyone. (And then resort to blacklisting.) What if the system was "closed" by default and instead a sender would contact the receiving SMTP daemon directly (no internediary) and would first need either a means of authentication (i.e. he has been pre-approved) or a way to have his sending address revieved and then receive permission to send. Right now you can see someting like this within a domain. For example, one gmail user might be able to send to another gmail user, directly, as they are both able to authenticate. They both have accounts (private accounts, not some RBL, DKIM or other scheme managed by an interloper) and these accounts can be checked. But if one gmail user wants to send to some non-gmail address, the non-gmail recipient has no knowledge of the sender in the form of an account against which he can authenticate. There's no privity between sender and receiver. Instead third party schemes are used. Such as blocklists for sending. Consider the idea of running a mailserver than only accepts mail from a predetermined set of sending addresses. What would be the chances of receiving junk mail?
- doesnt_know 14y ago
  "Consider the idea of running a mailserver than only accepts mail from a predetermined set of sending addresses." How is this functionally any different then blacklists? That's just a whitelist instead. So instead of new mail severs "quite likely" being on a blacklist, they are definitely not going to be on a whitelist. And no, it doesn't matter if isn't a smart idea when you aren't in a position to change anything. Even if you have a perfect technical solution to the problem, you still have to convince every existing major provider to adopt a solution that isn't even a direct problem for them.
  - overbroad 14y ago
    If Alice and Bob agree to run their own SMTP daemons, closed to the public and not necessarily on port 25, and they each agree to put the other on their "whitelist", how is this functionally different from the current third party controlled system? Answer: 1. Immediate delivery, assuming Bob and Alice keep their machines online. 2. No spam. 3. No third parties exerting control over their mail. No idiosyncratic delivery policies. I'm afraid there's no need to convince any provider of anything. At this point, Alice and Bob are sending and receiving email without the need for any third party "email provider". Functionally blacklists and whitelists are the same. They both have the same goal. But they are not the same in their effect. Blacklisting an entire netblock to stop one bad IP address affects many IP addresses who do not need to be blocked. Whitelisting a single known IP address does not have that side effect. For Alice and Bob, handling their own messages may be a desired option. Of course, not everyone may follow Alice and Bob's example. But who cares? The population using email is enormous and diverse. The point is that if someone wants a better solution than what "email providers" offer, she can get it.
    - doesnt_know 14y ago
      Your proposed solution isn't really email though. What you are describing has already been solved by instant messaging/jabber/twitter/facebook PM etc. Some of the solutions that already exist need a third part provider, others don't. The problem to solve is how do you have a fixed address where anyone can contact you, spam doesn't get though and you don't have to maintain personal black/white lists. This is what email currently provides. Granted, the spam part varies depending on the provider.

overbroad 14y ago

While I understand your sentiment, I respectfully disagree that it does not matter if it's a smart idea. Because if it is not a smart idea then that means we can do better. One of the projects I'm working on solves the "closed ecosystem" problem. The use of the term "closed ecosystem" is ironic because it seems to me that the "open" nature of email receiving (not sending) is what leads to the spam problem. In other words, I do not see the problem as the fact that people can send mass quantities of junk email. I see the problem as the fact that daemons accept and deliver mail from anyone. (And then resort to blacklisting.) What if the system was "closed" by default and instead a sender would contact the receiving SMTP daemon directly (no internediary) and would first need either a means of authentication (i.e. he has been pre-approved) or a way to have his sending address revieved and then receive permission to send. Right now you can see someting like this within a domain. For example, one gmail user might be able to send to another gmail user, directly, as they are both able to authenticate. They both have accounts (private accounts, not some RBL, DKIM or other scheme managed by an interloper) and these accounts can be checked. But if one gmail user wants to send to some non-gmail address, the non-gmail recipient has no knowledge of the sender in the form of an account against which he can authenticate. There's no privity between sender and receiver. Instead third party schemes are used. Such as blocklists for sending. Consider the idea of running a mailserver than only accepts mail from a predetermined set of sending addresses. What would be the chances of receiving junk mail?

doesnt_know 14y ago
"Consider the idea of running a mailserver than only accepts mail from a predetermined set of sending addresses." How is this functionally any different then blacklists? That's just a whitelist instead. So instead of new mail severs "quite likely" being on a blacklist, they are definitely not going to be on a whitelist. And no, it doesn't matter if isn't a smart idea when you aren't in a position to change anything. Even if you have a perfect technical solution to the problem, you still have to convince every existing major provider to adopt a solution that isn't even a direct problem for them.
- overbroad 14y ago
  If Alice and Bob agree to run their own SMTP daemons, closed to the public and not necessarily on port 25, and they each agree to put the other on their "whitelist", how is this functionally different from the current third party controlled system? Answer: 1. Immediate delivery, assuming Bob and Alice keep their machines online. 2. No spam. 3. No third parties exerting control over their mail. No idiosyncratic delivery policies. I'm afraid there's no need to convince any provider of anything. At this point, Alice and Bob are sending and receiving email without the need for any third party "email provider". Functionally blacklists and whitelists are the same. They both have the same goal. But they are not the same in their effect. Blacklisting an entire netblock to stop one bad IP address affects many IP addresses who do not need to be blocked. Whitelisting a single known IP address does not have that side effect. For Alice and Bob, handling their own messages may be a desired option. Of course, not everyone may follow Alice and Bob's example. But who cares? The population using email is enormous and diverse. The point is that if someone wants a better solution than what "email providers" offer, she can get it.
  - doesnt_know 14y ago
    Your proposed solution isn't really email though. What you are describing has already been solved by instant messaging/jabber/twitter/facebook PM etc. Some of the solutions that already exist need a third part provider, others don't. The problem to solve is how do you have a fixed address where anyone can contact you, spam doesn't get though and you don't have to maintain personal black/white lists. This is what email currently provides. Granted, the spam part varies depending on the provider.