Open-source disposable email service(sorry.idont.date) |
Open-source disposable email service(sorry.idont.date) |
I would be able to get a TLS certificate for this host. Why? Some TLS certificate providers allow verifying the domain via access to one of the privileged aliases like postmaster. So I could receive the verification token URL by looking at the postmaster inbox.
Every service offering any type of email inbox should block these aliases. They are ‘admin’, ‘administrator’, ‘webmaster’, ‘hostmaster’, ‘postmaster’. This is specified in the so-called Baseline Requirements, which is the standard for the operation of certificate authorities: https://cabforum.org/baseline-requirements-documents/
MAILBOX SERVICE SPECIFICATIONS
----------- ---------------- ---------------------------
POSTMASTER SMTP [RFC821], [RFC822]
HOSTMASTER DNS [RFC1033-RFC1035]
USENET NNTP [RFC977]
NEWS NNTP Synonym for USENET
WEBMASTER HTTP [RFC 2068]
WWW HTTP Synonym for WEBMASTER
UUCP UUCP [RFC976]
FTP FTP [RFC959]
The real value here is the opening of the source code. Set up a cheap domain, set up a cheap VPS, use Tailscale or similar to keep the web UI private, then you're good.
You can simply register a domain on domains.google, and they give you email aliases with each domain. The trick is that while you are limited to 5 aliases, you can define the * alias and it will redirect any mail recieved at that domain. The mail then ends up in your mailbox, but you can easily block adresses that do too much while not breaking the workflow of recieving emails you want.
Right, so this is a different use-case. You're talking about a usecase where you're not sure if you trust the site, but you may be interested in getting emails from them in the future, should they not violate that trust. You may even be interested in responding to the email. Fastmail also supports this with their masked emails.
OP's use-case is you're sure that you don't trust the site, you're sure that you're not interested in getting emails from them in the future, and you're sure that you will never reply. Therefore, you need an address that is entirely disposable. It's not quite the same thing.
Also, bold move implementing your own smtpd: https://github.com/psarna/edgemail/blob/master/src/smtp.rs#L...
But for outgoing mail that requires real work / knowledge / full control over your DNS records. Recently gmail has stopped to accept any email without SPF/DKIM.
When I send such email to a custom domain used by a Google office customer it's even worse. Then their admin gets to see my mail (not sure how much detail of it) in the admin interface.
I wonder; if you used this with a "one-payment-only" disposable card, to buy stuff without being harassed by subsequent "newsletters" ... is there a way this could backfire spectacularly by virtue of it being a public address?
I'm assuming the answer is probably yes, but I can't think of an obvious reason why.
EDIT: Hm, on second thought, I guess at a minimum you'd have to give a valid address to buy stuff. Unless it's one of those "give us your email to register" at a physical point of sale. Or unless you have things delivered to a local shop you trust or something. dunno.
Yeah... disposable
> otherperson@ABC.com to burner123@subdomain.mydomain.com: Blah blah
> me@mydomain.com to otherperson@ABC.com: Blah back at you!
> otherpersonABC@ABC.com to me@mydomain.com: Who are you and why are you responding to my message to burner123@subdomain.mydomain.com?
Does 33mail make it easy to continue the conversation under the alias?
What does that mean exactly? Hopefully not that everybody else can look at my "throwaway" inbox.
>What does that mean exactly? Hopefully not that everybody else can look at my "throwaway" inbox.
It means exactly that. This is in the spirit of the old free version of Mailinator. Use a randomly generated string as the local part of the address to prevent others from guessing and looking that that inbox.
Just enter any inbox you want at the top of the homepage.
What it is: It gives you private throwaway email addresses. Instead of signing up for a website with <real>@gmail.com, use <fixed>@duck.com. It will forward the email to <real>@gmail.com after removing any trackers from it. It also lets you generate <random>@duck.com addresses on demand. If you sign up for something with <random>@duck.com, and they start spamming you, you can turn the email address off without doing anything to <real>@gmail.com or <fixed>@duck.com.
How to re-access it: Information about your duck.com address is stored in that browser. If you use the Browser extension, that remembers it. You simply need to log into that email address from your current browser. To do this, visit https://duckduckgo.com/email/, click on "I already have a Duck address", and enter your original <fixed>@duck.com address. It will email you a one-time password to <real>@gmail.com, and you'll be back in again.
Instead, use a forwarding email from Gmail, Hey.com, Outlook or ProtonMail.
Right now email verification services like verifymail.io says idont.date provides 'real' emails
The author should certainly clarify the license terms if they want this to be widely used, but though I wouldn’t use this for MANY reasons, not one of them is fear of having violated the author’s copyrights.
Just interested in it hypothetically, in practice specifying a license in the text seems like a no brainer
> So the absence of a license means it defaults to exclusive copy right
> but can advertising it as open source be construed as a 'license'
General consensus with most licensing schemes is to add a license header to the top of every file, or otherwise specify that all files in a certain repository are subject to that license in a clear manner that everyone accessing these files will have access to (i.e. README file).
My suspicion is that you could probably give verbal or informally written or offered license and that it would be valid from a legal perspective. I'm basing that off the existence of verbal contracts and how there is no process for licenses but instead a very practical consensus on the best way to communicate intent.
EDIT: In a sibling comment I verified this suspicion! Includes a couple links to short articles.
So emailing longrandomstring@33mail.com will reply TO the original address FROM the alias address.
Have you set up a catchall address for that subdomain?
And after doing some digging it looks like I am correct in that the ambiguous offer could easily be construed as a license. [1] states > A license can be oral or arise by implication when considering all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction between the copyright owner and the purported licensee.
And [2] also supports that, though I won't do a direct quote. The search that surfaced this was differences between copyright licenses and assignments.
Thanks! I've been curious about this for a while and in the process of editing my reply to you I stumbled on the right searches
[1] https://www.edwardallenlaw.com/difference-between-copyright-...
[2] https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/copyright/copyr....
https://github.com/psarna/edgemail/issues/1
psarna, thank you for sharing this project. Would you mind adding a LICENSE file to the repo to clarify that the licenses specified in Cargo.toml ("MIT OR Apache-2.0") are how you intended the entire project to be licensed? Software licenses are legal documents, and users would appreciate the reassurance that the project is FOSS.
But having license headers on top of every file feels a bit like a corporate lawyer requirement. Is that really common in all open source projects?
> Is that really common in all open source projects?
Depending on the open-source license you're using it's actually _required_ to do that, although many developers (like me) don't actually do it because in reality it really doesn't matter, but strictly speaking it's the correct (and sometimes necessary) thing to do. The overall principle is that it reduces ambiguity. What if a user gets access to source files without access to the rest of the repo? Then they won't be able to know what the license for that code is. Or what if your project mixes in code from other projects for purposes such as dependency vendoring? You need to be explicit in which files are licensed how and by whom.
This stack exchange discussion is somewhat illuminating [0].
As you can see, GPL licenses require a copyright notice and a license notice on every file (although no need for the entire license). Apache v1 requires the license on every file. The MIT license is somewhat ambiguous as the definition for "substantial portions of the Software" is not clearly defined, a possible interpretation is that every single file is a substantial portion of the software, this is why some MIT licensed projects include it, in its entirety, in every single source code file.
IANAL, but Kyle E. Mitchell is, and he has an interesting line-by-line explanation of the MIT license which helped clear some of the ambiguity for me [1].
[0]: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/3170...
[1]: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2016/09/21/MIT-License-Line-b...