billpeck
Premium
join:2008-10-12
Poway, CA | reply to dslx_gm
Re: smtp.gmail server CHANGES From & Reply headers!
How about "gsmack"? |
|
dslx_gm
Premium,VIP
join:2002-12-26
Winnetka, CA
| reply to billpeck
said by billpeck  :Has anyone coined a good term for that yet? (ie targeted ads vs general spam) I think that is is commonly referred to as Gray Mail. Those would be things like emails from Expedia after you purchase a flight from them. Some people want and don't mind them while others don't. »www.ceas.cc/2007/papers/paper-79.pdf |
|
Zak_D_H
Premium,VIP
join:2007-01-04
Salt Lake City, UT | reply to billpeck
Hi billpeck
adware? |
|
billpeck
Premium
join:2008-10-12
Poway, CA | reply to remmian
Thanks for the info and recommendations. My question was more concerned with the marketing side than the e-mail privacy side. Seems everyone wants to "ad" me to death! Has anyone coined a good term for that yet? (ie targeted ads vs general spam) |
|
remmian
@dslextreme.com | reply to remmian
PS Also meant to mention that all personal email should be encrypted, if you are concerned about privacy. |
|
remmian
@dslextreme.com
| reply to billpeck
billpeck: I only wish I'd realized it sooner.
As for Google spying... I spent 5 years researching online privacy full time, (1995-2000), and as most anyone now knows, email is not considered private by any ISP, nor is there any expectation of privacy. This is commonly stated in the terms of service. It is often said you should not say anything in email that you wouldn't want published in a newspaper or shared on TV.
Additionally, Google is a huge company based around marketing, and marketing means profiling. In particular, Google is partnered with DoubleClick, the FIRST KING of poor privacy practices and aggressive profiling. The Google terms of service says:
"At Google we recognize that privacy is important. This Privacy Policy applies to all of the products, services and websites offered by Google Inc. or its subsidiaries or affiliated companies EXCEPT DoubleClick (DoubleClick Privacy Policy) and Postini (Postini Privacy Policy); collectively, Google’s “services”. "
In other words, whatever the Google Policy says it's only part of the picture and these other marketers' privacy policies are the rest of the picture... and being extremely familiar with DClick's history, forget about any notion of privacy. Their privacy policy basically states you don't have any privacy, couched in language intended to give the opposite impression. Whether or not this has any bearing on mail passing through Google servers, who knows, REGARDLESS of what the respective privacy policies say!
So while you might enjoy a small expectation of some modicum of privacy on a smaller, private mail server like DSLXs, (which is exactly why I LIKED DSLX!), for your own best interest I'd personally recommend that you assume NO expectation of privacy AT ALL with gmail or Google services. AFAIC all information provided them -- anything that passes through their servers -- is subject to multiple types of analysis from profiling-type software and possibly other filters looking for potentially harmful or illegal material that Google wants to protect itself against. (Don't forget, Google gives email addresses for free to the general public. That opens them up to a lot more risk than DSLX, and that also means more aggressive monitoring.)
I only wish I would have known that I could have kept the DSLX mail server all along.  I never wanted any of my personal information passed to, or through, Google. They are a good search engine. That's it AFAIC. |
|
billpeck
Premium
join:2008-10-12
Poway, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to remmian
I stumbled upon remmian's post so tested one of my custom addresses and was shocked to find the same problem! I had only changed one non-dslx mail address so I changed the server back and fixed the problem. Thanks to remmian for pointing this out and thanks to dslx gm for leaving the outgoing dslx mail server up. I fully agree with remmian that I DO NOT want my dslx address going out on my other mail addresses. I have those addresses for various purposes and don't need them screwed up like that.
BTW, is google spying on us now?? |
|
dickmead
join:1999-08-22
Pasadena, CA
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | reply to dslx_gm
Says DSLX_GM:
You are correct. If you are local on our network authentication isn't required. If you are not on our network authentication is required.
From within the network, I get:
2008-10-18 07:57:02 SMTP fail (HELO error! SMTP server: 66.51.205.17)
Manually it works. Automated from the router fails (above example)
Is it my router mail attempt at fault? |
|
dslx_gm
Premium,VIP
join:2002-12-26
Winnetka, CA | reply to remmian
You are correct. If you are local on our network authentication isn't required. If you are not on our network authentication is required. |
|
remmian
@dslextreme.com
| reply to OZO
Thanks OZO.
A quick note here.... don't mean to throw a fly in the ointment, but when I conf'g my client with the smtp.dslextreme.com server, it worked without authentication. Which brought the caveat to mind. Unless it only asks for authentication on non-local requests? For some reason I assumed it would be one way or the other... that it would ask for authentication regardless, and serve both local and outside calls, or that it would never ask for authentication, and only serve local requests. IAC I added my username/passwd for good measure, hoping it will work when I'm not local. |
|
OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17 | reply to remmain
You're welcome!
And return back if you'll have any questions how to use it. |
|
remmain
@dslextreme.com
| reply to OZO
PS To OZO: Thanks for that info. I have been tempted to run my own mail server at different times over the years, but now is not a particularly good time (at least not until after the election). I *do* prefer it be a choice and option, and not a necessity! 
I will check out the one you suggested for future use. I used Pegasus Mail (by David Harris) from circa 1993 until 6 months ago when I switched to Thunderbird, and David also wrote Mercury, so that's why I was going to give that one a try. (Also free.) But you've made hMailServer sound good. Thanks again. |
|
remmian
@dslextreme.com
| reply to OZO
It sounds like everything is okay then. That is, if I understood you, DSLX_gm, the old servers *are* using authorization ... so we should be able to send mail from any network, right?
I'd like to add my 2 cents to OZO's request that customers be notified in advance of DSLX deciding (if they should) to take down the smtp.dslextreme.com server. |
|
OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
| reply to remmian
said by remmian :
Now I have to download the Mercury Mail Server by David Harris and spend I-don't-know-how-many days figuring out how to run my own da*m mail server.
That will give you a great experience in how mail system works. Running your own mail server (if you can do it 24/7) will give you easy and reliable way to fight any spam problem for your domains. I'm talking form my recent experience running my own mail server. I'm pleasantly surprised and even excited to see the right way to deal with it. Spam is rejected BEFORE it could be accepted by SMTP server. Spamers get error replies by server that they're not welcome to send anything to your domain before they even try to send something. After wasting their pressures time (they're always in a rush, if you watch the process) they give up and move on to the next SMTP server that accepts their trash...
I suppose that for your domains you use a mail forwarding service. Read this my post about how it may facilitate spaming of your domain accounts.
Finally, I may recommend hMailServer as your next SMTP server. It's free, simple and it works very well.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself... |
|
OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
| reply to dslx_gm
Thank you for that word, dslx_gm
said by dslx_gm :I don't anticipate taking it down in... Please let us know in advance if DSLE will going to change its plans with regard to the old SMTP servers.
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself... |
|
dslx_gm
Premium,VIP
join:2002-12-26
Winnetka, CA
2 edits | reply to OZO
Hi OZO,
I apologize, I must have overlooked that the authentication piece was your issue and that I had that included in my original post. I was speaking with our operations team this week with regards to leaving the mail authentication database active at least for grandfathered clients. It is still running normally and accounts are still being created there. I don't anticipate taking it down in and of the least for grandfathered clients that were on the platform prior to the migration to the new servers or someone that specifically requests it. As I said though, the SMTP servers (including SMTP authentication) are still running as they were before. Nothing has changed.
Thanks
--
George
General Manager
DSL Extreme
Will work for reviews.  |
|
OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17
| reply to remmian
This means that because now they do not support old authentication on the old mail server anymore you must connect to it only from IPS network (read - from you home only). You can't connect mail server from other places anymore. You'll discover it in a hard way when you try to send a mail from your laptop, when you outside of your home. I'll be unpleasant discovery at the time when you urgently need it (and you thought that you can rely on you mail server), but suddenly you can't do anything...
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself... |
|
remmian
@dslextreme.com | reply to remmian
FTR while I was writing my inquiry, you (OZO) were posting the answer! Thanks for explaining that! |
|
remmian
@dslextreme.com | reply to OZO
ARGH!! I also want to know why DSLX can't just leave the old smtp running as it was (SO BEAUTIFULLY I MIGHT ADD)??? |
|
remmian
@dslextreme.com
| reply to dslx_gm
... I hope that caveat ("the user will have to be in one of our local networks") doesn't mean using Webmail. I have no idea what statement is supposed to mean.
Meanwhile I'm going to reconfig my client with the old server and see if it works... |
|
