ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse
-
@scottalanmiller said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
@Dashrender said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
This all assumes you own the IP, i.e. not a shared IP.
Which is the case here, having a stable IP is something you don't really have in the cloud world. We can do things to mimic it, but it gets more and more complicated and unreliable.
Really? I'm about to stand up a PBX at a VPS and you're telling me that I'm not going to get my own IP address? We know this isn't true, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
-
@Dashrender said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
@scottalanmiller said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
@Dashrender said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
This all assumes you own the IP, i.e. not a shared IP.
Which is the case here, having a stable IP is something you don't really have in the cloud world. We can do things to mimic it, but it gets more and more complicated and unreliable.
Really? I'm about to stand up a PBX at a VPS and you're telling me that I'm not going to get my own IP address? We know this isn't true, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
You are looking at VPS, not cloud, right? Very different approaches.
-
If you are thinking that we spin up a VPS email server separate from the cloud application servers, then I would understand the idea of a stable IP. But if we do that, then we are just recreating the email service and totally supporting my original point - that this doesn't make sense.
-
@scottalanmiller said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
If you are thinking that we spin up a VPS email server separate from the cloud application servers, then I would understand the idea of a stable IP. But if we do that, then we are just recreating the email service and totally supporting my original point - that this doesn't make sense.
I guess I don't understand the problem then - you're trying to use a cloud provider to provide email? Does that work for anyone?
Here's a question - can I no longer use SPF records once I move to O365?
-
@Dashrender said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
I guess I don't understand the problem then - you're trying to use a cloud provider to provide email? Does that work for anyone?
We are using an email service, if that is what you are asking.
-
@Dashrender said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
Here's a question - can I no longer use SPF records once I move to O365?
You are supposed to still use them. We have to set them for O365. SPF doesn't matter here, it doesn't remove blacklisting.
-
@scottalanmiller said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
@Dashrender said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
Here's a question - can I no longer use SPF records once I move to O365?
You are supposed to still use them. We have to set them for O365. SPF doesn't matter here, it doesn't remove blacklisting.
SPF is for pseudo authenticating the source of the email. Not having any SPF record does not generally hurt, but having a good SPF record will help prevent others from marking your email as SPAM or junk.
-
@scottalanmiller said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
If you are thinking that we spin up a VPS email server separate from the cloud application servers, then I would understand the idea of a stable IP. But if we do that, then we are just recreating the email service and totally supporting my original point - that this doesn't make sense.
No, you are not totally recreating the email service. You would be setting up a relay. Basically making a send only mail server that only accepts mail from your NodeBB instance to be forwarded.
-
@JaredBusch said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
@scottalanmiller said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
If you are thinking that we spin up a VPS email server separate from the cloud application servers, then I would understand the idea of a stable IP. But if we do that, then we are just recreating the email service and totally supporting my original point - that this doesn't make sense.
No, you are not totally recreating the email service. You would be setting up a relay. Basically making a send only mail server that only accepts mail from your NodeBB instance to be forwarded.
How is that different, though? It's a separate system that just relays email. That's all MailGun is doing, right?
-
@JaredBusch said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
@scottalanmiller said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
@Dashrender said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
Here's a question - can I no longer use SPF records once I move to O365?
You are supposed to still use them. We have to set them for O365. SPF doesn't matter here, it doesn't remove blacklisting.
SPF is for pseudo authenticating the source of the email. Not having any SPF record does not generally hurt, but having a good SPF record will help prevent others from marking your email as SPAM or junk.
Yup, it's a great idea, but no panacea.
-
@scottalanmiller said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
@JaredBusch said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
@scottalanmiller said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
If you are thinking that we spin up a VPS email server separate from the cloud application servers, then I would understand the idea of a stable IP. But if we do that, then we are just recreating the email service and totally supporting my original point - that this doesn't make sense.
No, you are not totally recreating the email service. You would be setting up a relay. Basically making a send only mail server that only accepts mail from your NodeBB instance to be forwarded.
How is that different, though? It's a separate system that just relays email. That's all MailGun is doing, right?
Assuming that ML is using the "free" tier of service, that means we are hitting 10k email in days. Tripling that to 30k emails would be $45/month at MailGun.
Compare that to a simple CentOS 7 instance on Vultr for $5/month.
Gee I dunno, it seems so horribly complicated to me. Such hard math. @Minion-Queen needs to decide if she is serious in this venture or not. If she is, then pay for a service and stop using BS excuses.
-
@JaredBusch said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
@scottalanmiller said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
@JaredBusch said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
@scottalanmiller said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
If you are thinking that we spin up a VPS email server separate from the cloud application servers, then I would understand the idea of a stable IP. But if we do that, then we are just recreating the email service and totally supporting my original point - that this doesn't make sense.
No, you are not totally recreating the email service. You would be setting up a relay. Basically making a send only mail server that only accepts mail from your NodeBB instance to be forwarded.
How is that different, though? It's a separate system that just relays email. That's all MailGun is doing, right?
Assuming that ML is using the "free" tier of service, that means we are hitting 10k email in days. Tripling that to 30k emails would be $45/month at MailGun.
Compare that to a simple CentOS 7 instance on Vultr for $5/month.
Gee I dunno, it seems so horribly complicated to me. Such hard math. @Minion-Queen needs to decide if she is serious in this venture or not. If she is, then pay for a service and stop using BS excuses.
Right, the cost is different, but cost was never discussed as an issue only that the two approaches amounted to the same thing... that an email service either needs to be built or utilized. One might be cheaper but has a lot more soft cost as well, like time to maintain.
But in both cases, a service is needed or a pseudo-service that we build ourselves or else the cloud ideology makes local email effectively impossible.
-
Now what would be a factor, that would make Vultr have an advantage here that you don't know about, is that we have access to spin up resources there with pre-existing billing and with MailGun we don't, because for some reason Rackspace's Mailgun billing isn't integrated properly, which is the only issue at this point. The service is great, it's only their billing integration that is a barrier because it requires more coordination internally. So Vultr would have an advantage there, but only because of that.
-
@scottalanmiller said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
else the cloud ideology makes local email effectively impossible.
What does this mean?
-
This post is deleted! -
@scottalanmiller said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
Right, the cost is different, but cost was never discussed as an issue only that the two approaches amounted to the same thing... that an email service either needs to be built or utilized. One might be cheaper but has a lot more soft cost as well, like time to maintain.
But in both cases, a service is needed or a pseudo-service that we build ourselves or else the cloud ideology makes local email effectively impossible.
OK I see where you're going - but cost is what really matters here. Do you want to spend money paying someone else to maintain a service for you, or do you want to pay your staff to maintain a service for you. This should be a simple economics question, with a side of possible pass the buck.
-
@Dashrender said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
@scottalanmiller said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
else the cloud ideology makes local email effectively impossible.
What does this mean?
Cloud thinking means that you are not on static IPs (as just one artifact of that ecosystem.) Growth and changes involve the creation and destruction of resources and, with only the rarest exception, IPs are not maintained in that ecosystem. Of course they would be maintained to some degree at the load balancers, but that has no effect when talking about outbound email services.
-
@Dashrender said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
@scottalanmiller said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
Right, the cost is different, but cost was never discussed as an issue only that the two approaches amounted to the same thing... that an email service either needs to be built or utilized. One might be cheaper but has a lot more soft cost as well, like time to maintain.
But in both cases, a service is needed or a pseudo-service that we build ourselves or else the cloud ideology makes local email effectively impossible.
OK I see where you're going - but cost is what really matters here. Do you want to spend money paying someone else to maintain a service for you, or do you want to pay your staff to maintain a service for you. This should be a simple economics question, with a side of possible pass the buck.
No, cost is not the issue has hasn't been for a long time. Getting people off of their butts and coordinated to get it addressed is the issue
-
@scottalanmiller said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
Now what would be a factor, that would make Vultr have an advantage here that you don't know about, is that we have access to spin up resources there with pre-existing billing and with MailGun we don't, because for some reason Rackspace's Mailgun billing isn't integrated properly, which is the only issue at this point. The service is great, it's only their billing integration that is a barrier because it requires more coordination internally. So Vultr would have an advantage there, but only because of that.
I don't understand - RS is behind because you have to get two bills from RS instead of one? Oh no.. what is the world coming to.
Just couldn't help it. -
@scottalanmiller said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
@Dashrender said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
@scottalanmiller said in ML's Email Blacklisting BS Excuse:
Right, the cost is different, but cost was never discussed as an issue only that the two approaches amounted to the same thing... that an email service either needs to be built or utilized. One might be cheaper but has a lot more soft cost as well, like time to maintain.
But in both cases, a service is needed or a pseudo-service that we build ourselves or else the cloud ideology makes local email effectively impossible.
OK I see where you're going - but cost is what really matters here. Do you want to spend money paying someone else to maintain a service for you, or do you want to pay your staff to maintain a service for you. This should be a simple economics question, with a side of possible pass the buck.
No, cost is not the issue has hasn't been for a long time. Getting people off of their butts and coordinated to get it addressed is the issue
With as many VMs as you create in a day - I don't understand how this is an issue.
