Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.software.thunderbird > #21715 > unrolled thread

Providers that allow a 3rd party address in outgoing mail

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.software.thunderbird

Contents

  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 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#21766

Am 13.08.26 um 22:27 schrieb Adam H. Kerman:
> 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.

Alignment. She can use Sender: but that doesn't give any proof she is 
allowed to use the foreign domain. Anyone can do that and this is the 
reason for the alignment requirement of certain receiving sites.

> 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.

The receivers decide not to accept them. You can ask Google or MS to 
change that, but they most likely won't.

-- 
Gruß
Marco

Please send unsolicited mail to dustbin12@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21767

Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>Am 13.08.26 um 22:27 schrieb Adam H. Kerman:

>>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.

>Alignment. She can use Sender: but that doesn't give any proof she is 
>allowed to use the foreign domain. Anyone can do that and this is the 
>reason for the alignment requirement of certain receiving sites.

Just this one time, will you pretend that you and I are truly having a
discussion and you are actually willing to acknowledge my position instead
repeating and repeating the obvious?

If she has authenticated Sender, she has not authenticated From. That is
obvious. Her account is traceable. "Anyone" cannot do that from a
well-run site with AUP that immediately TOSses a user who is a bad
actor. With authentication, there is no anonymity.

If the site is poorly run, then better-run sites will have already been
refusing connections regardless of DKIM.

>>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.

>The receivers decide not to accept them. You can ask Google or MS to 
>change that, but they most likely won't.

Thanks for the condescension, Marco. It's always such a pleasure to talk
to you. I was merely offering a hypothetical in which ordinary use of
email was not being actively discouraged. You rejected it out of hand
with zero consideration. I know better than to address you on Usenet.
It's delusional thinking on my part that true conversation is possible.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21768

Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> 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.

I am very naive/ 'ignorant'/ of mail server behavior, so I hesitate to 
enter this thread, but I think I am understanding that Jo-Anne 'should' 
use a Sender field in such as Tb.

But, as I read about native 'features' and add-ons for Tb, I see that it 
isn't very hard to gain a Sender field for received mail, but creating a 
Sender field for outgoing mail is not so easy.

Am I correct in my understanding?

-- 
Mike Easter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21769

On 15/08/2026 00:04, Mike Easter wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I am very naive/ 'ignorant'/ of mail server behavior, so I hesitate to 
> enter this thread, but I think I am understanding that Jo-Anne 'should' 
> use a Sender field in such as Tb.
> 
> But, as I read about native 'features' and add-ons for Tb, I see that it 
> isn't very hard to gain a Sender field for received mail, but creating a 
> Sender field for outgoing mail is not so easy.
> 
> Am I correct in my understanding?
> 

It's very easy, in the compose window click your From: email, scroll to 
the bottom and choose "Customize From Address..."
That's a one-off of course, but adding a fake identity isn't very hard 
either.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21770

dillinger wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>>
>> But, as I read about native 'features' and add-ons for Tb, I see that 
>> it isn't very hard to gain a Sender field for received mail, but 
>> creating a Sender field for outgoing mail is not so easy.
>>
>> Am I correct in my understanding?
> 
> It's very easy, in the compose window click your From: email, scroll to 
> the bottom and choose "Customize From Address..."

To me, that sounds like the result would be to put the 'desired' address 
in the header From: field instead of the 'default'; but it would NOT 
change the 'label' of the field where you put the desired address from 
From: to Sender:

I'm thinking you need a Sender: labeled field to 'satisfy' a mail server 
of your 'deed' being 'appropriate'.

> That's a one-off of course, but adding a fake identity isn't very hard 
> either.


-- 
Mike Easter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21776

Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> wrote:
>dillinger wrote:
>>Mike Easter wrote:

>>>But, as I read about native 'features' and add-ons for Tb, I see that 
>>>it isn't very hard to gain a Sender field for received mail, but 
>>>creating a Sender field for outgoing mail is not so easy.

>>>Am I correct in my understanding?

>>It's very easy, in the compose window click your From: email, scroll to 
>>the bottom and choose "Customize From Address..."

>To me, that sounds like the result would be to put the 'desired' address 
>in the header From: field instead of the 'default'; but it would NOT 
>change the 'label' of the field where you put the desired address from 
>From: to Sender:

>I'm thinking you need a Sender: labeled field to 'satisfy' a mail server 
>of your 'deed' being 'appropriate'.

Without my suggestion that DKIM-authentication on Sender being accepted
when using a foreign address on From, unauthenticated Sender makes
little difference to Jo-Anne as it's another one of her own addresses.
She's not sending a message on behalf of another author.

>>That's a one-off of course, but adding a fake identity isn't very hard 
>>either.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21772

On 14/08/2026 23:32, dillinger wrote:
> On 15/08/2026 00:04, Mike Easter wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> I am very naive/ 'ignorant'/ of mail server behavior, so I hesitate 
>> to enter this thread, but I think I am understanding that Jo-Anne 
>> 'should' use a Sender field in such as Tb.
>>
>> But, as I read about native 'features' and add-ons for Tb, I see that 
>> it isn't very hard to gain a Sender field for received mail, but 
>> creating a Sender field for outgoing mail is not so easy.
>>
>> Am I correct in my understanding?
>>
>
> It's very easy, in the compose window click your From: email, scroll 
> to the bottom and choose "Customize From Address..."
> That's a one-off of course, but adding a fake identity isn't very hard 
> either.


Although it is easy to change the 'From' field, Proton will not send the 
email unless the 'From' address is a Proton email address.

I don't know if Proton allows you to use Thunderbird to send and receive 
emails with a free account. When I tried to find the server settings on 
my free Proton account, I couldn't find anything. This was about a year 
ago, but things may have changed recently.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21781

On 2026-08-14, Gmail User <gmail@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 14/08/2026 23:32, dillinger wrote:
>> On 15/08/2026 00:04, Mike Easter wrote:
>>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I am very naive/ 'ignorant'/ of mail server behavior, so I hesitate 
>>> to enter this thread, but I think I am understanding that Jo-Anne 
>>> 'should' use a Sender field in such as Tb.
>>>
>>> But, as I read about native 'features' and add-ons for Tb, I see that 
>>> it isn't very hard to gain a Sender field for received mail, but 
>>> creating a Sender field for outgoing mail is not so easy.
>>>
>>> Am I correct in my understanding?
>>>
>>
>> It's very easy, in the compose window click your From: email, scroll 
>> to the bottom and choose "Customize From Address..."
>> That's a one-off of course, but adding a fake identity isn't very hard 
>> either.
>
>
> Although it is easy to change the 'From' field, Proton will not send the 
> email unless the 'From' address is a Proton email address.
>
> I don't know if Proton allows you to use Thunderbird to send and receive 
> emails with a free account. When I tried to find the server settings on 
> my free Proton account, I couldn't find anything. This was about a year 
> ago, but things may have changed recently.

Proton has done alot recently on fleshing out the info/help pages.
>
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21771

On 14/08/2026 23:04, Mike Easter wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I am very naive/ 'ignorant'/ of mail server behavior, so I hesitate to 
> enter this thread, but I think I am understanding that Jo-Anne 
> 'should' use a Sender field in such as Tb.
>
> But, as I read about native 'features' and add-ons for Tb, I see that 
> it isn't very hard to gain a Sender field for received mail, but 
> creating a Sender field for outgoing mail is not so easy.
>
> Am I correct in my understanding?
>
I think what everyone here was suggesting to Jo-Anne was to use the 
current email address and 'From' field as prescribed by Proton, as well 
as creating an email signature to inform people of the change of email 
address. This will help those still sending her emails to her college 
account to get used to the new status quo.

The college email account may not work forever and the forwarding could 
stop at any time, for example if the new IT manager decides that they 
can no longer support forwarding emails to alumni after so many years.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21773

Gmail User wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> I am very naive/ 'ignorant'/ of mail server behavior, so I hesitate to
>> enter this thread, but I think I am understanding that Jo-Anne
>> 'should' use a Sender field in such as Tb.
>>
>> But, as I read about native 'features' and add-ons for Tb, I see that
>> it isn't very hard to gain a Sender field for received mail, but
>> creating a Sender field for outgoing mail is not so easy.
>>
>> Am I correct in my understanding?
>>
> I think what everyone here was suggesting to Jo-Anne was to use the
> current email address and 'From' field as prescribed by Proton, as well
> as creating an email signature to inform people of the change of email
> address. This will help those still sending her emails to her college
> account to get used to the new status quo.
> 
My understanding is that that idea can't work.

Also, Proton has 'other' limitations. You can't use your local agent 
such as Tb w/ free Proton.

My 'sense of it' has been that she would like to use Tb, a free account, 
and her old .uni addy.  And that she doesn't want to purchase or 
'maintain' her own domain.

> The college email account may not work forever and the forwarding could
> stop at any time, for example if the new IT manager decides that they
> can no longer support forwarding emails to alumni after so many years.
> 
Well, that is what her .uni addy 'adversaries' want to say, but my sense 
of it is that it *HAS* been working 'indefinitely' and therefore might 
be 'assumed' to continue to work indefinitely.

That is, I'm still 'striving' for Jo-Anne to be able to do it the way 
she wants to, even tho' there are obstacles, and I'm continuing to 
/wonder/ if the obstacles can't be overcome w/ a combination of a 
working Sender: field in Tb AND a free mail provider that it will work w/.

I haven't yet heard anything wrong w/ the Outlook idea someone suggested 
but I don't know yet whether it is possible to reconfigure Tb properly.

-- 
Mike Easter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21774

On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 23:35:38 +0100, Gmail User <gmail@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On 14/08/2026 23:04, Mike Easter wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> I am very naive/ 'ignorant'/ of mail server behavior, so I hesitate to 
>> enter this thread, but I think I am understanding that Jo-Anne 
>> 'should' use a Sender field in such as Tb.
>>
>> But, as I read about native 'features' and add-ons for Tb, I see that 
>> it isn't very hard to gain a Sender field for received mail, but 
>> creating a Sender field for outgoing mail is not so easy.
>>
>> Am I correct in my understanding?
>>
>I think what everyone here was suggesting to Jo-Anne was to use the 
>current email address and 'From' field as prescribed by Proton, as well 
>as creating an email signature to inform people of the change of email 
>address. This will help those still sending her emails to her college 
>account to get used to the new status quo.

The analogy would be to recall that in the days before the wonders of
email, everyone had physical mail items delivered to a home address
(or mebbe PO Box).

If a person moved residence (or the reason for the PO Box changed),
the resident had to advise recipients; the provider cooperated with
forwarding for a certain period... and life continued.

Jo-Anne wants to have electonic cake-and-eat.  Git over it.  She isn't
at uni anymore.

>
>The college email account may not work forever and the forwarding could 
>stop at any time. 

Exactly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21775

Nobody wrote:
> Gmail User wrote:
> 
>> The college email account may not work forever and the forwarding could
>> stop at any time.
> 
> Exactly.

I think that if the uni which has been forwarding for presumably years 
(and years) were going to cease to do so, they would be notifying their 
accounts in advance.


-- 
Mike Easter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21777

On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 17:31:30 -0700, Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid>
wrote:

>Nobody wrote:
>> Gmail User wrote:
>> 
>>> The college email account may not work forever and the forwarding could
>>> stop at any time.
>> 
>> Exactly.
>
>I think that if the uni which has been forwarding for presumably years 
>(and years) were going to cease to do so, they would be notifying their 
>accounts in advance.

Sorry... still no sympathy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21778

Nobody wrote:
> Mike Easter 
>>
>> I think that if the uni which has been forwarding for presumably years
>> (and years) were going to cease to do so, they would be notifying their
>> accounts in advance.
> 
> Sorry... still no sympathy.

I don't even know how many decades I've had the same eml addy nor have a 
clue as to all of the people and entities which have that addy to 
contact me.  It doesn't seem 'possible' that I could notify all of those 
entities if I were going to change my addy.  Likewise my telno.


-- 
Mike Easter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21779

On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 17:47:00 -0700, Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid>
wrote:

>Nobody wrote:
>> Mike Easter 
>>>
>>> I think that if the uni which has been forwarding for presumably years
>>> (and years) were going to cease to do so, they would be notifying their
>>> accounts in advance.
>> 
>> Sorry... still no sympathy.
>
>I don't even know how many decades I've had the same eml addy nor have a 
>clue as to all of the people and entities which have that addy to 
>contact me.  It doesn't seem 'possible' that I could notify all of those 
>entities if I were going to change my addy.  Likewise my telno.

Ditto, as to longevity of email home and (listed) telno.

But you're using TB for out-going mail so, Shirley, any individual
recipient's address is filed in Address Book?

If you're relying on mass-mail (bank etc.) incoming advisories
becoming lost in the nethers of scattered electrons to tell you
sumthink, gee.

This entitlement concept... I Want, You Give It, and if You Don't, I'm
Being Screwed... is rampant across society.

Look after/keep track of yer own affairs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21780

Nobody wrote:
> But you're using TB for out-going mail so, Shirley, any individual
> recipient's address is filed in Address Book?

Actually, no. I only use Tb for usenet, not mail. I was relating my 
situation about not wanting to lose my eml addy 'in support of' 
Jo-Anne's not wanting to lose her long-standing eml addy.

I'm sure there are 'plenty' of entities who I want to have my eml addy 
which I do NOT have their/its email addy. I get 'wanted' mail, ham, from 
entities which I do not email.

Personal friends and 'contacts' I want /are/ in an address book, but I 
also receive wanted mail/ham from entities which are not.

-- 
Mike Easter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21749

On 10/08/2026 09:28, MikeS wrote:
> 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?

Having her own domain will not solve all of Jo-Anne's problems. She 
would also need an email hosting service, which would incur an extra cost.

I don't think people have considered the issues they are likely to 
encounter when everything becomes subscription-only. Times are hard, and 
the crisis in the Middle East has created more problems than those in 
power at the WhiteHouse anticipated. The sooner DJT leaves office, the 
better it will be for us all.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.software.thunderbird

csiph-web