Slashdot Mirror


Gmail, SPF, and Broken Email Forwarding?

alek writes "I recently stopped getting Email from a friend ... which turns out to be related to his use of SPF records and my forwarding to gmail. This 'lost Email problem' may get worse with Google implementing Domain Keys." Alek is looking for a non-complicated solution to this non-trivial problem; read on below for more details. "Background: Like many people, I have me@mydomain.com as my public facing Email address. When Email comes into my server, I forward it to me@gmail.com. But since my friend has published SPF (Sender Policy Framework) records that say only his server is allowed to send Emails for friend@frienddomain.com, gmail apparently rejects (silently buries actually!) the Email since it is forwarding through my server. Please note that this is exactly what SPF is designed to prevent — spammers from sending Emails with your address — but it breaks forwarding and has other problems.

What's *really* strange is that if I look at the raw sendmail logs on my server, the Email from friend@frienddomain.com comes in, and is forwarded to gmail ... with an "OK" as the response — i.e. the gmail MTA doesn't reject the message as it ideally should. However, the Email then disappears — it's not even in my gmail spam filter ... so there is no trace of it at all. If my friend sends directly to me@gmail.com, it shows up ... since his domain sends directly and the SPF test is passed. Note that on my gmail account, I associate me@mydomain.com with my me@gmail.com account ... so perhaps there should be a recipient test applied before SPF is tested on the sender ... although this arguably defeats the purpose of SPF.

The logical solution is to configure sendmail on my server to do Sender Rewriting — anyone have an easy FAQ to do this? But many people/domains aren't doing this ... and my Email forwarding to gmail is quite common, so I'm surprised that this issue hasn't gotten more attention. Is there another solution?"

53 of 300 comments (clear)

  1. Sunblock by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Funny

    I prefer SPF 60. It allows me to keep the pasty white, computer nerd complexion that drives the women wild.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Sunblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I prefer SPF 60. It allows me to keep the pasty white, computer nerd complexion that drives the women away.

      There, fixed that for ya.

    2. Re:Sunblock by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 5, Funny

      I prefer SPF 60. It allows me to keep the pasty white, computer nerd complexion that drives the women away.

      There, fixed that for ya.


      . o <-- joke
      .
      . </sarcasm> tag
      . o <-- you
      ./|\
      ./ \

    3. Re:Sunblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      company that makes servers.

    4. Re:Sunblock by onkelonkel · · Score: 4, Funny

      Beware! The elders sometimes speak in hushed tones of "The Daystar". Its evil blinding rays will singe you to the finest ash and "The Wind" (like moving air from a cooling fan, but hideously amplified) will blow the ash away as if it had never existed.

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
  2. Please adhere to RFC by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Informative
    Please stop using mydomain.com and other such nonsense. Example.com is reserved by RFC 2606 for use as a...wait for it...example domain name. Please make a habit of using it instead of whatever name strikes your fancy, as it is probably in use by real people.

    The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) also currently has the following second level domain names reserved which can be used as examples.
    • example.com
    • example.net
    • example.org
    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Please adhere to RFC by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ironic you bring this up when thedailywtf.com posted this little bit today.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    2. Re:Please adhere to RFC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Did you score a 200 on your SAT? Did you even take the SAT? Since your reading comprehension skills are apparently on par with first graders and congressmen, allow me to clarify.

      1) The story submitter used 'mydomain.com' as an example domain in his original post.

      2) The OP of this thread said 'Don't do that', use 'example.com' instead of 'mydomain.com'.

      3) You pointed out (1)

      4) You are being rightfully flamed for being such an ignoramus.

    3. Re:Please adhere to RFC by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Informative

      Um, no. If you actually read RFC 2606, it is for TESTING. If this guy were really sending test emails to me@mydomain.com, then he would be in violation. Simply posting it on Slashdot as an example is not prohibited.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    4. Re:Please adhere to RFC by hansonc · · Score: 4, Funny

      I present you Select/Copy/Paste. You can do that with almost all the new Operating Systems

      not on my iPhone you insensitive clod.

  3. Is there another solution? by jeffmeden · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, of course. Have all your email sent to Google in the first place! You don't have to switch everything over to the Google app tool, you can just set MX records for your domain pointing to them, and collect it all (or forward it inside or outside Google.) It's free (with a paid version available.) Check it out here http://www.google.com/a/help/intl/en/index.html

    1. Re:Is there another solution? by dch24 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It really works! (ob. disclaimer: satisfied customer)

      Our company forwards email to google (MX record in the DNS), where it runs through the spam filter and then a forwarding rule (an anything-but-spam rule) sends it on to our mailboxes.

      For free... :-)

  4. Simple answer: stop forwarding by mattbee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Effective spam filtering for forwarded email is pretty much impossible, as you lose vital information in the forwarding. Either get rid of your forwarding address, or have it hosted at Google as well. Probably the largest single reduction in spam I've ever made was the week that I got rid of years-old forwarding addresses. If the forwarding address is more important, just get it hosted at Google directly, or tell people to stop using it!

    --
    Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
  5. silently dropping is not unexpected by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What's *really* strange is that if I look at the raw sendmail logs on my server, the Email from friend@frienddomain.com comes in, and is forwarded to gmail ... with an "OK" as the response -- i.e. the gmail MTA doesn't reject the message as it ideally should. However, the Email then disappears -- it's not even in my gmail spam filter ... so there is no trace of it at all.

    While the RFCs specify that an MTA that is dropping should notify the sender in various ways, modern MTAs often violate these parts of the spec, pretending to accept and then dropping the mail and/or failing to send bounce notifications.

    This is deliberate. Not sending bounce messages reduces the load on the servers and net (now that most mail traffic bounces). Pretending to accept mail which is actually dropped is a defense against guessing email addresses and probing filters to see what gets past them.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:silently dropping is not unexpected by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It violates RFCs and causes problems like we are reading about now. It needs to stop.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:silently dropping is not unexpected by AVee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That would be true is google would actually first accept the email and then send a bounce message because it doesn't like it after all.
      What they should do is reject the email immediately, in which case they don't have to send a bouce email but the mail is properly logged as being rejected. Ofcourse this does mean google will have to do all of their checks before accepting the message which is a bit harder to do but it is the only correct solution for the bounce problem.

    3. Re:silently dropping is not unexpected by AVee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's absolutly true for content filters, but SPF (which is the issue here) is designed to be used during the transfer. That's how it should be used when used at all. SPF is not exactly free of potential issues with legitimate email which makes silent dropping an even bigger issue.

      Either way, you should never silently discard an email unless you are 110% sure it's spam. In all other cases it should either be dropped in the spam folder or be properly rejected. Anything else makes email totally unreliable. (And frankly, you shouldn't entrust your email to a company that thinks it ok to silently drop something addressed to you, but that another issue.)

    4. Re:silently dropping is not unexpected by vux984 · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, fuck the spammer.

      Following the RFC fucks the innocent bystander, not the spammer. Is following the RFC worth fucking innocent bystanders over?

      Either respect the RFC, or come up with a solution with at least as much attention as the RFCs were given.

      In the meantime, while you come up with a solution, I'll disregard the RFC for this situation, because fucking innocent bystanders over while the world figures out a 'real solution' isn't acceptable.

    5. Re:silently dropping is not unexpected by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It violates RFCs

      I'm giving up mods to post this, but it really needs to be said.

      People need to stop blaming things on services who pragmatically choose to violate selected aspects of decades-old standards that don't address today's realities. The problem with modern e-mail is that the standard is hopelessly out of touch with modern demands. There should long ago have been a consistent standard that covered things like sender authentication, encryption and signing, formatted messages ("HTML e-mails"), smart handling of errors without treating them all as e-mails in their own right, and numerous other fundamentally broken parts of the original e-mail specs. But there isn't, so people try to do reasonable things and stay as true to the standard as they can without being dogmatic about it when it's obviously a stupid thing to do.

      So no, I don't think silent dropping needs to stop under all circumstances. E-mail has never had useful reliability of delivery (another thing a replacement standard should deal with) so you can't count on it anyway. On the other hand, I'm sick and tired of getting a deluge of hundreds of unwanted e-mails in ten minutes because someone sent out a mail with webmaster@my.domain as the sender, and loads of people who were confident enough that the message was spam to block it still sent back a bounce message to an address that is 99.99% likely to have been faked as well in that case. I'm sorry, but that's just antisocial behaviour, and responsible sysadmins should take steps to avoid it: if you're confident enough to refuse delivery, why aren't you confident enough not to reverse-spam the innocent bystander? If you're running a sensible service where a user can whitelist specific senders or switch off spam filtering altogether for specific receiving addresses if they want to guarantee receiving everything, and they've opted in to your spam filtering, this shouldn't be a problem.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  6. Pull instead of push? by Robotech_Master · · Score: 5, Informative

    Doesn't GMail offer the ability to fetch your email from POP accounts now? It would probably not be the ideal solution, but perhaps you should stop forwarding and instead start POPping.

    --
    Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
    1. Re:Pull instead of push? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or given the box of horrors that is POP, you could try IMAP, which google now also supports.

    2. Re:Pull instead of push? by Loether · · Score: 3, Informative

      gmail does let you pull via pop3 BUT the scheduler is not configurable. Gmail checks pop randomly when it feels like it. For me it's about every 30 minutes to 1 hour. YMMV

      --
      TODO create witty sig.
    3. Re:Pull instead of push? by ceka · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ... IMAP, which google now also supports.

      Gmail claims to support IMAP, but if you try really using it, its awful.

      Eg deleting an email from my mail client inbox only removes it from the Inbox label, it still stays in AllMail. And deleting from AllMail is impossible, the email reappears in thunderbird in a minute or two. Deleting attachments doesnt work. Etc.

      I understand they want to keep my data as long as possible and also that they want to make IMAP work with their Labels, but I don't care I just want an IMAP compliant email account...

  7. Domain Keys doesn't have the same issue by thadman08 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Domain Keys authenticates that the message was generated by a server with access to the DK private key. Forwarding the message does not affect the originator of the message, so the Domain Key authentication still checks out.

    SPF and DKs solve similar issues, but in a much different manner.

  8. Easy -- sign up for Google Apps for your Domain by ahecht · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sign up for Google Apps, and then you can have all mail sent to me@mydomain.com be handled by GMail. All you have to do is sign up at http://www.google.com/a/ and link your domain. Then point your domain's MX records to aspmx.l.google.com.

    In the future, all you have to do in order to get your mail is to go to http://mail.google.com/a/mydomain.com/ instead of http://www.gmail.com (and you can even set it up so that http://mail.mydomain.com CNAMES to your email login page)

    1. Re:Easy -- sign up for Google Apps for your Domain by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 3, Funny

      OMG you didn't use example.com as your domain. You're risking the nerdwrath of that dude above.

  9. FAQ by RzTen1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's actually a fairly simple procmail fix right on the spf site: http://www.openspf.org/FAQ/Forwarding

  10. You seem to have answered the question already by RevDigger · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is also known as, "The Problem With SPF." SPF breaks forwarding. This is well known. People who use SPF need to be aware of the ramifications.

    The SPF people have created SRS, as you are aware, to work around this problem. It is a complicated and unappealing workaround. I certainly won't do it.

    You have three options as I see it:

    1) Stop forwarding. It's really a terrible idea. Install webmail on your mailserver. Check out RoundCube, for instance.
    2) Wait for people to figure out that strict SPF policies break SMTP too badly for most users.
    3) Implement SRS. (this would probably be easier if you were using a modern MTA)

    I guess you were hoping for an easy fix, but there simply isn't one.

  11. Support SPF by ergo98 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    SPF won't do anything to stop spam anyway (despite what some of it's proponents say.) It needs to die a quick death

    I put SPF on my domain not because I think that it'll solve the world's spam problem, but because it helps reduce the (large) number of bogus returns that come back to my domain (the more recipients that have SPF checking on, and realize that some sender in China isn't a legitimate source for emails from my domain, eats and discards the message rather than bouncing back some wasteful return spam to me).

    SPF is great. It isn't a total solution, and there are negatives, but it certainly is better than the anyone is anyone free for all.

  12. Re:Easy answer by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's outstandingly unhelpful. How about attaching a link to a decent SRS implementation? Or sending them to OpenSPF?

    Randomly throwing down on people legitimately asking for some technical help is a big problem in the OSS community. Whether or not /. is the appropriate place to ask this question is debatable, but since it made the front page and there is no helpful SRS faq on this site, might as well direct them somewhere.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  13. ^---- what jeffmeden said. by klocwerk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Another satisfied google hosted apps customer chiming in. I have a reseller webhosting account that I keep about 10-15 domains on for myself/friends/family which does acceptable e-mail, but I advise everyone to just shove their e-mail over to gmail/a instead.

    You get your own hosted mail/webmail service with (currently) 7gb of storage per/account, no preset account limit, POP and IMAP, as well as great spam-filtering.
    All free.

    And for $50/acct/year you can have 25gb/acct storage, API access to customize it for single-signon and/or gateways, a full Postini implementation, and 99.9% uptime guarantee.

    Hate to sound like a shill, but it's a fantastic service and I don't mind pimping it.

    --

    "You worthless post!"
    -Shakespeare, 2 Gentlemen of Verona, 1. 1. 147
  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. Re:I knew .. by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "I use my gmail account for catching all the junk mail you get for signing up for a mailing list. I guess i need to have my email server just send me a message stating that i have new mail waiting."

    At first I was wondering why they hell someone that had a working email server would shuttle it through Gmail, but then I read about using the spam filters, etc.

    While that sounds good on the surface, is anyone out there not a little apprehensive about having all your email, particularly if you're a business, going through and being stored on their servers? I mean, someday Google will bend completely for govt. wanting to search all emails for 'terrorists' activities, and God knows who else will too.

    I guess I'd want a bit more privacy on my emails, especially if they contained sensitive or proprietary information. I know...they're in plain text and could be intercepted if not encrypted, but, this is altogether different. It is stored on google's servers and there for easy data mining.

    I'm getting ready to dig out my old email server post Katrina...can you not use procmail and spamassassin to filter spam as effectively as Gmail does?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  16. It's just an example in a text message by r39525 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For God's sake. It's just text! RFC 2606 doesn't specify what you're allowed to write in a text message.

    If you're actually going to do some testing then it might matter. What matters here is can the reader understand the question. I can. Can you?

  17. Sorry, Swoosh belongs to Nike. by johnny+cashed · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think you're looking for whoosh.

    1. Re:Sorry, Swoosh belongs to Nike. by _ivy_ivy_ · · Score: 5, Funny

      RFC 9835 specifically calls for a "whoosh." The use of "swoosh" has been depreciated.

    2. Re:Sorry, Swoosh belongs to Nike. by Sciros · · Score: 5, Funny

      deprecated

      --
      I like basketball!!1!
    3. Re:Sorry, Swoosh belongs to Nike. by neltana · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, RFC 0444 has been reserved by the IETF for use as an example RFC number. Your joke should have used that.

      Come on, people!

  18. Re:I knew .. by BizzyM · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you are worried that your "sensitive" email could be stored and eventually used against you:
    1) stop using email altogether.
    2) you need to get to a drug rehab center... cocaine is a hell of a drug

  19. Re:I knew .. by SQLGuru · · Score: 3, Informative

    My e-mail goes through my domain, forwarded to Gmail, and then is downloaded to my computer via POP. Gmail is my offsite back-up (that is accessible from anywhere) and home is where I do most of my mail viewing/sending. All of those GB of space, local copies in case Gmail fails, remote copies in case my computer fails. And assuming Google is "not evil", then I should be ok.

    Layne

  20. The solution, Return Path Header by Rashkae · · Score: 3, Informative

    SPF will validate the Return-path header if there is one instead of the From: address.

    Unfortunately, I don't know how to make either sendmail or postfix insert a return path when they forward an e-mail, but the easy work around is to install mail list software as your forwarder. You can create a mailing list as your incoming e-mail, with only 1 mail list member, (which is your g-mail account). Mail list software will automagically insert the appropriate return-path header that is needed in this case.

  21. DomainKeys DOES NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM by ZOP · · Score: 3, Informative

    DKIM and DomainKeys work in a fundamentally different way. The message is SIGNED. Hosts are not indicated one way or the other. So any DKIM signed mail can transit any number of hosts provided they don't modify the signed sections.

    SPF has no such luxury unless implemented in a much more advanced manner in terms of the senders publishing. And it's not GMail's fault for following the SPF records as published, they should do a better job of rejecting early rather than just /dev/null-ing the email though.

  22. Re:maybe a silly question but.. by mkettler · · Score: 4, Informative

    People over-generalize terms quite often, and "forwarding" has different meanings in different situations. Generally the difference boils down to if you're talking about a "server" implementation or a "mail client" implementation.

    In this case, the SPF folks are addressing server admins, so by "forwarding" they mean sending the message to a new recipient without altering the headers. This use problably originates back to the old ".forward" files on unix machines, but may go back further. Most server-side implementations use this meaning for "forward".

    However, forwarding by hitting the "forward" button most mail clients does something different. That creates a new message with new headers and preserves the old body text. sending with the same headers is called "redirect" in most mail clients.

    Isn't it great how mail clients and mail servers use different meanings for the same word?

    Even the client/server pair that go together from the same company have this problem. For example, Microsoft - exchange server has forwarding contacts, which forward without header changes, while Outlook clients do change the headers when you hit the "forward" button.

    --
    -Matt
  23. How to make it work by stefanb · · Score: 5, Informative
    Amazing what a bunch of unhelpful whiners take the time to *not* answer the actual question, and get modded up for it.

    For this example, I'm assuming that your email is joe@example.com and your gmail address is joe-example@gmail.com.

    Create an alias (/etc/mail/aliases) for the address that get's forwarded to gmail.

    joe: joe-example@gmail.com

    Also create an alias for <foo>-owner:

    joe-owner: joe

    Sendmail will look for this special <foo>-owner alias whenever sending mail to the <foo> alias, and use it as the envelope sender on the outgoing mail. So any mail that is sent to joe@example.com will be resent by sendmail with a sender address of joe@example.com. The header addresses will remain unchanged, so hitting reply will still go to the right person.

    Is this the solution to all SPF forwarding brokeness? Of course not, but it's a surpisingly simple solution to a number of common forwarding situation. Note that you better be careful about spam filtering on your machine, or your mail server (your sender's address) will appear to Google as a source of spam, and might get filtered.

    1. Re:How to make it work by stefanb · · Score: 4, Informative
      Argh, RTFM really helps.

      It's owner-<foo>, not the other way around. So the aliases example should read:

      joe: joe-example@gmail.com
      owner-joe: joe

      See the aliases man page for further details.

  24. Re:I knew .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    .can you not use procmail and spamassassin to filter spam as effectively as Gmail does?

    Short answer is, no. Google's large amount of incoming email, their patented algorithms, and the huge data mine they're sitting on give them a unique ability to provide very through and high-quality spam filtering.

    Of course, that isn't to say that one can't do a half decent job with spamassassin, it just won't be as good as Google's filter.

  25. You insensitive clod! by Zombie · · Score: 3, Funny
    Any idea how much spam I've been getting since you posted that?!

    Regards,
    Joe Example

  26. SPF, Gmail, and SRS by statemachine · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since you are running your own SMTP server, you signed on to be a sysadmin. I am replying to you as a fellow sysadmin and I'll give sysadmin-style answers. Please don't take my response to be negative in any way, as I'm trying to help.

    The logical solution is to configure sendmail on my server to do Sender Rewriting -- anyone have an easy FAQ to do this?

    If you follow the link that you just gave for Sender Rewriting, it answers your question. "Implementation" links to modules, source, and configurations.

    But many people/domains aren't doing this ... and my Email forwarding to gmail is quite common, so I'm surprised that this issue hasn't gotten more attention. Is there another solution?"

    I say that you don't know how many people are implementing SRS, nor do you know how many forward e-mail to Gmail. Let's stick to the basics before giving up so readily. I take it that you absolutely do not want to give up carte blanche forwarding from your own SMTP server to Gmail; so I'll tailor my reply to that.

    But since my friend has published SPF (Sender Policy Framework) records that say only his server is allowed to send Emails for friend@frienddomain.com, gmail apparently rejects (silently buries actually!) the Email since it is forwarding through my server.

    Your friend has published an SPF record because he doesn't want people forging his domain in the envelope-sender field. This is a common spam tactic that ruins the reputation of someone's domain, either through spammer apathy or sometimes pure malice. Your e-mail forwarding (especially since you run your own SMTP) to Gmail is out of pure convenience to you and is unnecessary, so don't ask your friend to drop his SPF record.

    There are two ways to solve this:
    1) Have your friend add your SMTP server to his SPF record.
    2) Implement SRS if you want to solve it once and for all. If you follow your own links, there are explanations, examples, and actual code. You haven't said which SMTP server you're running, so you've limited the responses people can give you for your situation.

    I publish SPF records for my domains. There isn't anything "broken" about wanting to protect my domains' reputations from forgery. Very few people have a problem with forwarding that they didn't create themselves. This exception I'm talking about is people who have old university accounts (or similar) which only allow e-mail checking through a shell account and forwarding purely through a ".forward" file (or similar), with no POP, IMAP, or administrative access. This is not you. But for anyone who this describes, because of the draconian service policies, they shouldn't be giving out that e-mail address to new contacts, publish on papers, etc.

    My SMTP server checks SPF, but not DK. With SPF, the forged domains are instantly rejected, requiring minimal overhead. DK requires reception of the entire message (because the headers are in the DATA phase) in order to validate the message, on every message -- this uses unnecessary network bandwidth, and it places an extra load on my system since it would have to calculate and verify signatures for every single message. Maybe that's not an issue for you if you only receive a handful a day, but I receive thousands. Spammers know that including fake DK info in a message and then sending millions of these is effectively a Denial of Service attack on the servers that indiscriminately check DK signatures.

    I also use backup relays. For the relays that are not under my control and don't implement SRS, I simply bypass SPF checks from those IP addresses.

    About Google silently dropping your e-mail: Keep in mind that with your carte blanche forwarding, you're also forwarding spam. You are essentially spamming Gmail, even though it is you simply forwarding e-mail to your own account. It is difficult for Google to know this without human intervention or implementing some co

  27. Does business take gmail addresses seriously? by tonyray · · Score: 4, Informative

    One very good reason not to have your email address @gmail.com, if you are using it for your business, is that a LOT of businesses, wholesale vendors, even the federal government will not accept an @gmail.com address because of the large number of frauds associated with free email accounts (not just gmail, but also hotmail, yahoo mail, etc.) For example, this last tax season the federal govenment would not accept a gmail account for notification of your tax return status when filing electronically.

    It is much better from a business standpoint to have your own domain and email sent to your domain. If your MX points at gmail, that's okay. Just don't make your email address me@gmail.com if you want to be taken seriously.

  28. Re:Dump SPF by Matt+Perry · · Score: 3, Informative

    SPF won't do anything to stop spam anyway (despite what some of it's proponents say.)

    Of course it won't stop spam. It wasn't designed to. Its purpose is to stop joe jobs.

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  29. Fail/HardFail vs SoftFail by n.e.watson · · Score: 3, Informative

    Have your friend look up the SPF records for a bunch of big domains. He'll notice that most of them use "~all" - a SoftFail - which is accepted by Gmail. He's probably using "-all," which makes the message just drop. The only examples I've seen of SPF hardfails in the wild are from banks. However, loads of domains are using softfail - Facebook, Google, Microsoft, eBay, MIT, UC Berkeley - to name a few.

  30. Re:I knew .. by witherstaff · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have a gmail account, I get a handful of spam a week slipping through. I don't ever advertise my gmail account, however it's a common enough username with no numbers so dictionary attacks would hit it.

    I have a private email server, with clamav running spamassassin and postfix tuned to prevent spam (Simple settings really), I get even less spam than my gmail. This address has been published for years on multiple websites, I use for just about everything, in cleartext on websites that are spidered.

    In my experience you can do just as well or better than gmail without any headaches and a simple setup. Expect a few hours initial setup, and maybe an hour every 6 months to check if you're missing something the auto-updates can't update. It's been like this for a few years so far.

  31. Re:I knew .. by teknopurge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The reasons I still use them are that I think the quality and utility outweigh the risk, and because my much-smaller web hosting company is more likely to do something bird-brained than Google is.

    That's actually a foolish remark. Use google to search for things like "gmail outage" or "gmail issue". My favorite is "gmail security issue" with over 100k results.

    I've heard stories personally about people logging into gmail and ending up in someone else's Inbox. Yes, that's right, full access to someone else's email. Or how about another goodie: mass deletes of random emails.

    I don't understand why people have the idea that Google is better then competent system administrators - it's just plain foolish and naive.

    Regards,