Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.software.thunderbird > #21715 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jo-Anne <Jo-Anne@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-07 13:25 -0500 |
| Last post | 2026-08-10 20:53 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 57 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.thunderbird
Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Jo-Anne <Jo-Anne@nowhere.com> - 2026-08-07 13:25 -0500
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail "David E. Ross" <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2026-08-07 11:37 -0700
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> - 2026-08-07 21:10 +0100
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail "David E. Ross" <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2026-08-07 13:26 -0700
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Jo-Anne <Jo-Anne@nowhere.com> - 2026-08-07 16:14 -0500
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Thomas Barghahn <Th.Barghahn@t-online.de> - 2026-08-08 00:49 +0200
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Jo-Anne <Jo-Anne@nowhere.com> - 2026-08-07 18:55 -0500
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Thomas Barghahn <Th.Barghahn@t-online.de> - 2026-08-08 02:53 +0200
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Jo-Anne <Jo-Anne@nowhere.com> - 2026-08-08 12:26 -0500
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Gmail User <gmail@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-07 21:48 +0100
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-08-08 16:07 +0000
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Gmail User <gmail@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-07 22:14 +0100
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Jo-Anne <Jo-Anne@nowhere.com> - 2026-08-07 16:38 -0500
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Stan Brown <someone@example.com> - 2026-08-07 17:07 -0700
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Jo-Anne <Jo-Anne@nowhere.com> - 2026-08-08 12:34 -0500
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> - 2026-08-08 21:11 +0100
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-08-09 13:08 +0100
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-09 13:35 +0100
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-08-09 15:34 +0100
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-09 15:45 +0100
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-08-08 19:59 +0100
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2026-08-08 13:23 -0700
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2026-08-10 08:15 -0700
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-10 17:24 +0100
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Jo-Anne <Jo-Anne@nowhere.com> - 2026-08-08 17:02 -0500
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail dillinger <dillinger@not.invalid> - 2026-08-09 12:25 +0200
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Dnews <dnews@triffid.co.uk> - 2026-08-09 12:14 +0100
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-08-09 13:33 +0100
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-08-10 08:34 +0200
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-10 07:54 +0100
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> - 2026-08-10 09:28 +0100
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-10 09:38 +0100
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-08-11 14:34 +0200
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-11 14:51 +0100
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-08-12 15:05 +0200
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-08-11 14:19 +0000
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> - 2026-08-12 13:55 +0100
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-08-12 15:59 +0000
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-08-12 15:08 +0200
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-08-13 20:27 +0000
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-08-14 06:59 +0200
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-08-14 13:45 +0000
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2026-08-14 15:04 -0700
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail dillinger <dillinger@not.invalid> - 2026-08-15 00:32 +0200
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2026-08-14 15:40 -0700
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> - 2026-08-15 00:38 +0000
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Gmail User <gmail@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-15 00:07 +0100
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> - 2026-08-15 09:06 +0000
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Gmail User <gmail@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-14 23:35 +0100
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2026-08-14 16:32 -0700
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2026-08-14 17:14 -0700
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2026-08-14 17:31 -0700
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2026-08-14 17:38 -0700
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2026-08-14 17:47 -0700
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Nobody <jock@soccer.com> - 2026-08-14 18:30 -0700
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> - 2026-08-14 19:39 -0700
Re: Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail Gmail User <gmail@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-10 20:53 +0100
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-08 19:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1157ua8$1onep$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #21715 |
On 2026/8/7 19:25:47, Jo-Anne wrote: [] > I'd prefer not to get my own domain and would be grateful for the names of For curiosity - why not: cost, or some other reason? reliable email providers > that either allow one to send from a 3rd party address or offer 'Reply-To' a 3rd party address (or > both, of course). > PlusNet (now outsourced to Greenby or some such name) have been letting me send from such - they have frequently said they don't _support_ it, but so far they haven't _blocked_ it. I certainly won't guarantee this will continue to be the case, though. A possible wrinkle: I (and others) have had problems, mainly if not exclusively with Gmail, who detect I'm sending with address X via server Y; they basically ask my hosting provider if I have authorisation to do that. Adding PlusNet's outgoing server to a configuration line at my hoster solved it. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Electricians do it 'till it Hz.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-08 13:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ndphh7Fb9beU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21732 |
J. P. Gilliver wrote: > Jo-Anne wrote: > [] >> I'd prefer not to get my own domain and would be grateful for the names of > > For curiosity - why not: cost, or some other reason? > To me, it seems like unnecessary expense and 'trouble' for all she wants to do/ needs. She has what appears to be a 'forever' free addy that she likes/wants and all she needs is a little bit of service, which 'ought' to be/ could be/ free. Of course, I'm a frugal sorta guy. -- Mike Easter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-10 08:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ndu893F3gaaU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21734 |
Mike Easter wrote: > J. P. Gilliver wrote: >> Jo-Anne wrote: >> [] >>> I'd prefer not to get my own domain and would be grateful for the >>> names of >> >> For curiosity - why not: cost, or some other reason? >> > To me, it seems like unnecessary expense and 'trouble' for all she wants > to do/ needs. > > She has what appears to be a 'forever' free addy that she likes/wants > and all she needs is a little bit of service, which 'ought' to be/ could > be/ free. > > Of course, I'm a frugal sorta guy. > The more I'm learning about this, the more trouble I see for Jo-Anne doing it the way she wants to and has been doing for years. Or maybe her recipients' providers might flag her mail as spam and her friends could whitelist it. -- Mike Easter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-10 17:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nduc7qF47m3U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21747 |
Mike Easter wrote: > The more I'm learning about this, the more trouble I see for Jo-Anne > doing it the way she wants to and has been doing for years. > > Or maybe her recipients' providers might flag her mail as spam and her > friends could whitelist it. I her friends' providers are google/microsoft it's more likely they silently bin them, than flag them for the friends to overrule ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jo-Anne <Jo-Anne@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-08 17:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <115891l$1ld12$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #21732 |
On 8/8/2026 1:59 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > On 2026/8/7 19:25:47, Jo-Anne wrote: > [] >> I'd prefer not to get my own domain and would be grateful for the names of > > For curiosity - why not: cost, or some other reason? > > reliable email providers >> that either allow one to send from a 3rd party address or offer 'Reply-To' a 3rd party address (or >> both, of course). >> > PlusNet (now outsourced to Greenby or some such name) have been letting > me send from such - they have frequently said they don't _support_ it, > but so far they haven't _blocked_ it. I certainly won't guarantee this > will continue to be the case, though. > > A possible wrinkle: I (and others) have had problems, mainly if not > exclusively with Gmail, who detect I'm sending with address X via server > Y; they basically ask my hosting provider if I have authorisation to do > that. Adding PlusNet's outgoing server to a configuration line at my > hoster solved it. Thank you for the info. Re not wanting a domain, I have so many things going on that yet another one to learn about and set up is too much. It's difficult enough trying new email providers and learning what they won't do... -- Jo-Anne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dillinger <dillinger@not.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-09 12:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <451mkm-1d49.ln1@spock.lan> |
| In reply to | #21735 |
Op 09-08-2026 om 00:02 schreef Jo-Anne: > On 8/8/2026 1:59 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >> On 2026/8/7 19:25:47, Jo-Anne wrote: >> [] >>> I'd prefer not to get my own domain and would be grateful for the >>> names of >> >> For curiosity - why not: cost, or some other reason? >> >> reliable email providers >>> that either allow one to send from a 3rd party address or offer >>> 'Reply-To' a 3rd party address (or >>> both, of course). >>> >> PlusNet (now outsourced to Greenby or some such name) have been letting >> me send from such - they have frequently said they don't _support_ it, >> but so far they haven't _blocked_ it. I certainly won't guarantee this >> will continue to be the case, though. >> >> A possible wrinkle: I (and others) have had problems, mainly if not >> exclusively with Gmail, who detect I'm sending with address X via server >> Y; they basically ask my hosting provider if I have authorisation to do >> that. Adding PlusNet's outgoing server to a configuration line at my >> hoster solved it. > > Thank you for the info. Re not wanting a domain, I have so many things > going on that yet another one to learn about and set up is too much. > It's difficult enough trying new email providers and learning what they > won't do... > I tend to side with MikeS here, forward-only addresses are generally only provided to catch any mail still sent to them, so the senders can be informed of a changed email address. If your uni would have wanted you to keep using that address they would have provided you with a real account. So far you could use your uni address as a fake address on the SMTP server of your provider. Proton mail will not allow that, it is a trick very often used by spammers and worse, they obviously don't want any of of that. FWIW, my ISP does allow it, so I could test it for a few addresses. Email sent with fake email addresses does arrive, but only with addresses from existing domains and always with internal warnings which could easily trigger a spam or phishing filter. So, long story short, it looks like you'll finally have to bite the bullet and inform your contacts of your new email address.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dnews <dnews@triffid.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-09 12:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5d059f5354dnews@triffid.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #21735 |
In article <115891l$1ld12$2@dont-email.me>, Jo-Anne <Jo-Anne@nowhere.com> wrote: [Snip] > Thank you for the info. Re not wanting a domain, I have so many things > going on that yet another one to learn about and set up is too much. > It's difficult enough trying new email providers and learning what they > won't do... Though this thread has at times become repetitive, it's been interesting how many moan about having to change addresses for whatever reason, but resolutely refuse to get their own domain (Your choice obviously). :-) When I first internet connected in 1996, and with ISPs coming and going, I decided a few years later in 1999 to get my own domain name which I'm still using to this day, 9th Aug 2026. I also have a couple of other domains as well now. And how much easier it has made my email life... And when for whatever reason I've needed to change ISPs... Mostly, that's all there is to it... Over the years since 1999 I've changed ISPs (Hangonamo while I remember)... Four times to the current one that supplies my network connection, and now hosts all my domains, and I've never once in those 27 years had to send any email telling existing folks in my address books how to email me. It really is worth the effort in the long run. Somebody will probably come along and note... Rather a lot of eggs in one basket D. Yes, but I'm now OLD and can't be arsed with having stuff spread all over the place and remember where each bit is. So a few years ago I concatenated all my network stuff on to the services of my existing reliable service provider of some years, and not a single person in any of my domains address books needed to be contacted. Owning a domain name really is a Win Win... :-) D.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-09 13:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1159s2v$2amgd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #21737 |
On 2026/8/9 12:14:21, Dnews wrote: > In article <115891l$1ld12$2@dont-email.me>, > Jo-Anne <Jo-Anne@nowhere.com> wrote: > > [Snip] > >> Thank you for the info. Re not wanting a domain, I have so many things >> going on that yet another one to learn about and set up is too much. >> It's difficult enough trying new email providers and learning what they >> won't do... > > Though this thread has at times become repetitive, it's been interesting > how many moan about having to change addresses for whatever reason, but > resolutely refuse to get their own domain (Your choice obviously). :-) [] > And how much easier it has made my email life... And when for whatever > reason I've needed to change ISPs... Mostly, that's all there is to it... [] > Owning a domain name really is a Win Win... :-) > > D. > Plus, if at some time in the future you _do_ decide to make a website (even just a home page), it will be a lot easier (so choose a moderately sensible domain name [I suggest a .uk if you're in the UK]). BUT THIS IS NOT SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO DO; it's really mostly just a matter of entering new incoming and outgoing server names into your email software (Thunderbird, I presume, since this thread is here; it can I think hold details of two [or more] incoming servers, so you can keep both going until you're sure it's working, or forever for that matter); whatever hosting provider you choose will tell you the names of their servers. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Just because you're old it doesn't mean you go beige. Quite the reverse. - Laurence Llewelyn-Bowen, RT 2015/7/11-17
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-10 08:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <115brdc$2thmv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #21715 |
Am 07.08.26 um 20:25 schrieb Jo-Anne: > > I'd prefer not to get my own domain and would be grateful for the names > of reliable email providers that either allow one to send from a 3rd > party address or offer 'Reply-To' a 3rd party address (or both, of course). Such mail will be rejected by certain large providers like MS or Google because it lacks a DKIM signature from the sender domain and does not pass SPF. -- Gruß Marco Please send unsolicited mail to dustbin12@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-10 07:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ndtaqpFtm0tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21743 |
Marco Moock wrote: > schrieb Jo-Anne: > >> I'd prefer not to get my own domain and would be grateful for the >> names of reliable email providers that either allow one to send from a >> 3rd party address or offer 'Reply-To' a 3rd party address (or both, of >> course). > > Such mail will be rejected by certain large providers like MS or Google > because it lacks a DKIM signature from the sender domain and does not > pass SPF. Most large email providers require SPF or DKIM, not both. If jo-anne had her own domain, she could add an SPF record to include the provider's own SPF record (easier than maintaining her own list of their servers).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-10 09:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <115c243$2vlmo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #21744 |
On 10/08/2026 07:54, Andy Burns wrote: > Marco Moock wrote: > >> schrieb Jo-Anne: >> >>> I'd prefer not to get my own domain and would be grateful for the >>> names of reliable email providers that either allow one to send from >>> a 3rd party address or offer 'Reply-To' a 3rd party address (or both, >>> of course). >> >> Such mail will be rejected by certain large providers like MS or >> Google because it lacks a DKIM signature from the sender domain and >> does not pass SPF. > Most large email providers require SPF or DKIM, not both. > > If jo-anne had her own domain, she could add an SPF record to include > the provider's own SPF record (easier than maintaining her own list of > their servers). How does jo-anne having her own domain enable her to send emails from the university email address which she used until she left the university?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-10 09:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ndtgthF3tuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21745 |
MikeS wrote: > On 10/08/2026 07:54, Andy Burns wrote: >> Marco Moock wrote: >> >>> schrieb Jo-Anne: >>> >>>> I'd prefer not to get my own domain and would be grateful for the >>>> names of reliable email providers that either allow one to send from >>>> a 3rd party address or offer 'Reply-To' a 3rd party address (or >>>> both, of course). >>> >>> Such mail will be rejected by certain large providers like MS or >>> Google because it lacks a DKIM signature from the sender domain and >>> does not pass SPF. >> Most large email providers require SPF or DKIM, not both. >> >> If jo-anne had her own domain, she could add an SPF record to include >> the provider's own SPF record (easier than maintaining her own list of >> their servers). > > How does jo-anne having her own domain enable her to send emails from > the university email address which she used until she left the university? By itself it doesn't, but if the 3rd party provider (or university) allows sending as a smarthost then there's nothing to stop her configuring SPF for it ... indeed sensibly she would have to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-11 14:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <115f4t4$9dl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #21746 |
Am 10.08.26 um 10:38 schrieb Andy Burns: > MikeS wrote: > >> On 10/08/2026 07:54, Andy Burns wrote: >>> Marco Moock wrote: >>> >>>> schrieb Jo-Anne: >>>> >>>>> I'd prefer not to get my own domain and would be grateful for the >>>>> names of reliable email providers that either allow one to send >>>>> from a 3rd party address or offer 'Reply-To' a 3rd party address >>>>> (or both, of course). >>>> >>>> Such mail will be rejected by certain large providers like MS or >>>> Google because it lacks a DKIM signature from the sender domain and >>>> does not pass SPF. >>> Most large email providers require SPF or DKIM, not both. >>> >>> If jo-anne had her own domain, she could add an SPF record to include >>> the provider's own SPF record (easier than maintaining her own list >>> of their servers). >> >> How does jo-anne having her own domain enable her to send emails from >> the university email address which she used until she left the >> university? > > By itself it doesn't, but if the 3rd party provider (or university) > allows sending as a smarthost then there's nothing to stop her > configuring SPF for it ... indeed sensibly she would have to. This will not affect the SPF result for the university domain. DKIM is also only accepted if the domain name in the From: headers matches the DKIM record. The times when you could use any mail server to send from any address are finally over. -- Gruß Marco Please send unsolicited mail to dustbin12@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-11 14:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ne0nlaFfj9cU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #21750 |
Marco Moock wrote: > schrieb Andy Burns: > >> By itself it doesn't, but if the 3rd party provider (or university) >> allows sending as a smarthost then there's nothing to stop her >> configuring SPF for it ... indeed sensibly she would have to. > > This will not affect the SPF result for the university domain. No, only if jo-anne gets her own domain ... > DKIM is also only accepted if the domain name in the From: headers > matches the DKIM record. The times when you could use any mail server to > send from any address are finally over. agreed. Maybe we can have a grannies and eggs competition later ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-12 15:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <115hr2g$qvg7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #21751 |
Am 11.08.26 um 15:51 schrieb Andy Burns: > Marco Moock wrote: > >> schrieb Andy Burns: >> >>> By itself it doesn't, but if the 3rd party provider (or university) >>> allows sending as a smarthost then there's nothing to stop her >>> configuring SPF for it ... indeed sensibly she would have to. >> >> This will not affect the SPF result for the university domain. > > No, only if jo-anne gets her own domain ... If she uses the university's address, it must go through the server listed in the university's SPF record. As she said, the university only provides forwarding for her, she cannot use their server as smarthost (or just outgoing server). -- Gruß Marco Junk-Mail bitte an trashcan@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-11 14:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <115fb19$2fid$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #21750 |
Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote: >Am 10.08.26 um 10:38 schrieb Andy Burns: >>MikeS wrote: >>>On 10/08/2026 07:54, Andy Burns wrote: >>>>Marco Moock wrote: >>>>>schrieb Jo-Anne: >>>>>>I'd prefer not to get my own domain and would be grateful for the >>>>>>names of reliable email providers that either allow one to send >>>>>>from a 3rd party address or offer 'Reply-To' a 3rd party address >>>>>>(or both, of course). >>>>>Such mail will be rejected by certain large providers like MS or >>>>>Google because it lacks a DKIM signature from the sender domain and >>>>>does not pass SPF. >>>>Most large email providers require SPF or DKIM, not both. >>>>If jo-anne had her own domain, she could add an SPF record to include >>>>the provider's own SPF record (easier than maintaining her own list >>>>of their servers). >>>How does jo-anne having her own domain enable her to send emails from >>>the university email address which she used until she left the >>>university? >>By itself it doesn't, but if the 3rd party provider (or university) >>allows sending as a smarthost then there's nothing to stop her >>configuring SPF for it ... indeed sensibly she would have to. >This will not affect the SPF result for the university domain. >DKIM is also only accepted if the domain name in the From: headers >matches the DKIM record. The times when you could use any mail server to >send from any address are finally over. If From is an actual mailbox used to identify the author, there is nothing wrong with using it on messages sent via another network. That's the proper use, if not the intended use, of From. In these cases, the Sender header should be included to identify the mailbox of the user with the actual account on the network. Where DKIM is used to authenticate, then the header that should be included in authentication is Sender, ignoring From. An author prefering to use a foreign email address on From is not doing anything wrong. DKIM authentication is not precluded. Just use Sender and not From. If that's what the author wants, then set up authentication to accomodate it. It's been ridiculous all along to implement these protocols, pretending to do the world a favor by authenticating, while failing to accomodate perfectly ordinary uses of email. The Sender header has been there from the beginning, for exactly this purpose.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-12 13:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <115hqfk$qq0g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #21752 |
On 11/08/2026 15:19, Adam H. Kerman wrote: > Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote: >> Am 10.08.26 um 10:38 schrieb Andy Burns: >>> MikeS wrote: >>>> On 10/08/2026 07:54, Andy Burns wrote: >>>>> Marco Moock wrote: >>>>>> schrieb Jo-Anne: > >>>>>>> I'd prefer not to get my own domain and would be grateful for the >>>>>>> names of reliable email providers that either allow one to send >>>>>> >from a 3rd party address or offer 'Reply-To' a 3rd party address >>>>>>> (or both, of course). > >>>>>> Such mail will be rejected by certain large providers like MS or >>>>>> Google because it lacks a DKIM signature from the sender domain and >>>>>> does not pass SPF. > >>>>> Most large email providers require SPF or DKIM, not both. > >>>>> If jo-anne had her own domain, she could add an SPF record to include >>>>> the provider's own SPF record (easier than maintaining her own list >>>>> of their servers). > >>>> How does jo-anne having her own domain enable her to send emails from >>>> the university email address which she used until she left the >>>> university? > >>> By itself it doesn't, but if the 3rd party provider (or university) >>> allows sending as a smarthost then there's nothing to stop her >>> configuring SPF for it ... indeed sensibly she would have to. > >> This will not affect the SPF result for the university domain. >> DKIM is also only accepted if the domain name in the From: headers >> matches the DKIM record. The times when you could use any mail server to >> send from any address are finally over. > > If From is an actual mailbox used to identify the author, there is > nothing wrong with using it on messages sent via another network. That's > the proper use, if not the intended use, of From. > > In these cases, the Sender header should be included to identify the > mailbox of the user with the actual account on the network. Where DKIM > is used to authenticate, then the header that should be included in > authentication is Sender, ignoring From. > > An author prefering to use a foreign email address on From is not doing > anything wrong. DKIM authentication is not precluded. Just use Sender > and not From. If that's what the author wants, then set up > authentication to accomodate it. > > It's been ridiculous all along to implement these protocols, pretending > to do the world a favor by authenticating, while failing to accomodate > perfectly ordinary uses of email. The Sender header has been there from > the beginning, for exactly this purpose. The issue under discussion is not which network is used to send an email. It is whether you can/should send emails from an address/domain which you have no current authority to use. If that is what you are advocating it is an open invitation to fraud. As in phishing emails which aim to convince recipients they are genuine emails from a reputable organisation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-12 15:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <115i588$u25f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #21757 |
MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> wrote: >11/08/2026 15:19, Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote: >>>Am 10.08.26 um 10:38 schrieb Andy Burns: >>>>MikeS wrote: >>>>>On 10/08/2026 07:54, Andy Burns wrote: >>>>>>Marco Moock wrote: >>>>>>>schrieb Jo-Anne: >>>>>>>>I'd prefer not to get my own domain and would be grateful for the >>>>>>>>names of reliable email providers that either allow one to send >>>>>>>>from a 3rd party address or offer 'Reply-To' a 3rd party address >>>>>>>>(or both, of course). >>>>>>>Such mail will be rejected by certain large providers like MS or >>>>>>>Google because it lacks a DKIM signature from the sender domain and >>>>>>>does not pass SPF. >>>>>>Most large email providers require SPF or DKIM, not both. >>>>>>If jo-anne had her own domain, she could add an SPF record to include >>>>>>the provider's own SPF record (easier than maintaining her own list >>>>>>of their servers). >>>>>How does jo-anne having her own domain enable her to send emails from >>>>>the university email address which she used until she left the >>>>>university? >>>>By itself it doesn't, but if the 3rd party provider (or university) >>>>allows sending as a smarthost then there's nothing to stop her >>>>configuring SPF for it ... indeed sensibly she would have to. >>>This will not affect the SPF result for the university domain. >>>DKIM is also only accepted if the domain name in the From: headers >>>matches the DKIM record. The times when you could use any mail server to >>>send from any address are finally over. >>If From is an actual mailbox used to identify the author, there is >>nothing wrong with using it on messages sent via another network. That's >>the proper use, if not the intended use, of From. >>In these cases, the Sender header should be included to identify the >>mailbox of the user with the actual account on the network. Where DKIM >>is used to authenticate, then the header that should be included in >>authentication is Sender, ignoring From. >>An author prefering to use a foreign email address on From is not doing >>anything wrong. DKIM authentication is not precluded. Just use Sender >>and not From. If that's what the author wants, then set up >>authentication to accomodate it. >>It's been ridiculous all along to implement these protocols, pretending >>to do the world a favor by authenticating, while failing to accomodate >>perfectly ordinary uses of email. The Sender header has been there from >>the beginning, for exactly this purpose. >The issue under discussion is not which network is used to send an >email. It is whether you can/should send emails from an address/domain >which you have no current authority to use. Please don't go down a tangent. The O.P.'s university address remains her email address, even though she has no mailbox she can access on that network and cannot use SMTP. It's her address and she is identifying herself on From. She is absolutely using the address correctly. >If that is what you are advocating it is an open invitation to fraud. As >in phishing emails which aim to convince recipients they are genuine >emails from a reputable organisation. You owe Jo-Anne an apology, for she is not committing fraud. She is not phishing. SPF, DKIM, and DMARC are not fraud nor phishing countermeasures. They only indicate what they indicate. I get spam with DKIM or DMARC headers. A friend was pursuing her Ph.D. She'd send email with her university address on From. Invariably, I'd get a false positive for spam, often from an interim system and sometimes also from my own system. Finally, she began using a gmail address.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-12 15:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <115hr8s$r2qc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #21752 |
Am 11.08.26 um 16:19 schrieb Adam H. Kerman: > Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote: >> Am 10.08.26 um 10:38 schrieb Andy Burns: >>> MikeS wrote: >>>> On 10/08/2026 07:54, Andy Burns wrote: >>>>> Marco Moock wrote: >>>>>> schrieb Jo-Anne: > >>>>>>> I'd prefer not to get my own domain and would be grateful for the >>>>>>> names of reliable email providers that either allow one to send >>>>>> >from a 3rd party address or offer 'Reply-To' a 3rd party address >>>>>>> (or both, of course). > >>>>>> Such mail will be rejected by certain large providers like MS or >>>>>> Google because it lacks a DKIM signature from the sender domain and >>>>>> does not pass SPF. > >>>>> Most large email providers require SPF or DKIM, not both. > >>>>> If jo-anne had her own domain, she could add an SPF record to include >>>>> the provider's own SPF record (easier than maintaining her own list >>>>> of their servers). > >>>> How does jo-anne having her own domain enable her to send emails from >>>> the university email address which she used until she left the >>>> university? > >>> By itself it doesn't, but if the 3rd party provider (or university) >>> allows sending as a smarthost then there's nothing to stop her >>> configuring SPF for it ... indeed sensibly she would have to. > >> This will not affect the SPF result for the university domain. >> DKIM is also only accepted if the domain name in the From: headers >> matches the DKIM record. The times when you could use any mail server to >> send from any address are finally over. > > If From is an actual mailbox used to identify the author, there is > nothing wrong with using it on messages sent via another network. That's > the proper use, if not the intended use, of From. Indeed, but for some years it has been abused to forge foreign addresses, so people created mechanisms to detect and authenticate the sender. Certain large providers reject messages that do not pass them. > In these cases, the Sender header should be included to identify the > mailbox of the user with the actual account on the network. Where DKIM > is used to authenticate, then the header that should be included in > authentication is Sender, ignoring From. That means the alignment does not fit and the message is most likely being rejected. > An author prefering to use a foreign email address on From is not doing > anything wrong. DKIM authentication is not precluded. Just use Sender > and not From. If that's what the author wants, then set up > authentication to accomodate it. > > It's been ridiculous all along to implement these protocols, pretending > to do the world a favor by authenticating, while failing to accomodate > perfectly ordinary uses of email. The Sender header has been there from > the beginning, for exactly this purpose. Mail infrastructure was created in a time when spam and phishing did not exist in the way it does now. That's why SPF/DKIM/DMARC exist. They have their disadvantages, but there is no way around them if you want to deliver to Google, MS or Yahoo. -- Gruß Marco Junk-Mail bitte an trashcan@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-13 20:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <115l9bu$1uulb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #21759 |
Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote: >Am 11.08.26 um 16:19 schrieb Adam H. Kerman: >>Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote: >>>Am 10.08.26 um 10:38 schrieb Andy Burns: >>>>MikeS wrote: >>>>>On 10/08/2026 07:54, Andy Burns wrote: >>>>>>Marco Moock wrote: >>>>>>>schrieb Jo-Anne: >>>>>>>>I'd prefer not to get my own domain and would be grateful for the >>>>>>>>names of reliable email providers that either allow one to send >>>>>>>>from a 3rd party address or offer 'Reply-To' a 3rd party address >>>>>>>>(or both, of course). >>>>>>>Such mail will be rejected by certain large providers like MS or >>>>>>>Google because it lacks a DKIM signature from the sender domain and >>>>>>>does not pass SPF. >>>>>>Most large email providers require SPF or DKIM, not both. >>>>>>If jo-anne had her own domain, she could add an SPF record to include >>>>>>the provider's own SPF record (easier than maintaining her own list >>>>>>of their servers). >>>>>How does jo-anne having her own domain enable her to send emails from >>>>>the university email address which she used until she left the >>>>>university? >>>>By itself it doesn't, but if the 3rd party provider (or university) >>>>allows sending as a smarthost then there's nothing to stop her >>>>configuring SPF for it ... indeed sensibly she would have to. >>>This will not affect the SPF result for the university domain. >>>DKIM is also only accepted if the domain name in the From: headers >>>matches the DKIM record. The times when you could use any mail server to >>>send from any address are finally over. >>If From is an actual mailbox used to identify the author, there is >>nothing wrong with using it on messages sent via another network. That's >>the proper use, if not the intended use, of From. >Indeed, but for some years it has been abused to forge foreign >addresses, so people created mechanisms to detect and authenticate the >sender. Certain large providers reject messages that do not pass them. Because Jo-nne wasn't offered SMTP, she has a need to use a foreign email address on From. She SHOULD have been using the Sender header to indicate the netwrok she is using for SMTP. Then there is something for that network to authenticate. >>In these cases, the Sender header should be included to identify the >>mailbox of the user with the actual account on the network. Where DKIM >>is used to authenticate, then the header that should be included in >>authentication is Sender, ignoring From. >That means the alignment does not fit and the message is most likely >being rejected. Please explain your position. DKIM can be used to authenticate on any set of headers. The headers chosen should be the ones that MUST NOT be changed from the email client of the user to the email client of the recipient. Sender is such a heder. Of course it might be used for DKIM authentication. But authentication was set up ignoring a common scenario lie Jo-Anne's. >>An author prefering to use a foreign email address on From is not doing >>anything wrong. DKIM authentication is not precluded. Just use Sender >>and not From. If that's what the author wants, then set up >>authentication to accomodate it. >>It's been ridiculous all along to implement these protocols, pretending >>to do the world a favor by authenticating, while failing to accomodate >>perfectly ordinary uses of email. The Sender header has been there from >>the beginning, for exactly this purpose. >Mail infrastructure was created in a time when spam and phishing did not >exist in the way it does now. That's why SPF/DKIM/DMARC exist. You have gone down a tangent here. You failed to address exactly what I have been discussing. >They have their disadvantages, but there is no way around them if you >want to deliver to Google, MS or Yahoo. Tell me exactly why authentication could not have taken place with Jo-Anne using the Sender header to indicate her association with the SMTP server she has been using. Authentication, while not a spam countermeasure, while it does not prevent phishing, can provide traceability. In fighting the bad actors, that's what is needed. What isn't doing good is preventing Jo-Anne's legitimate messages from being delivered.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.thunderbird
csiph-web