[HN Gopher] Open-source disposable email service
___________________________________________________________________
Open-source disposable email service
Author : psarna
Score : 43 points
Date : 2023-05-12 19:13 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (sorry.idont.date)
(TXT) w3m dump (sorry.idont.date)
| kanary wrote:
| Do you plan to shuffle the domain? If this hits scale, sites
| pretty quickly blacklist domains. imo anonaddy is best at scale
| but still gets blocked.
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| Did not receive my test email for some reason
| mteam88 wrote:
| I would love something like this that forwards to a gmail address
| johnklos wrote:
| That can't work because Google does content-based filtering.
| They blame the forwarder for any spam or anything forwarded
| that's spam-like, and there's no way to designate a source as a
| legitimate (that is, don't blame it) forwarder.
| itake wrote:
| Websites like this always seem to shutdown. Now I can't access
| any accounts I created with them (since I can't password recovery
| or change the email).
| KomoD wrote:
| > Now I can't access any accounts I created with them (since I
| can't password recovery or change the email)
|
| Yeah... _disposable_
| macintux wrote:
| I've been a happy customer of https://33mail.com/ for years.
| It's a different style of offering with a similar purpose and
| apparently a sustainable business model.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| Fastmail supports something like this, but the process of
| adding a new outbound alias every time I need one is not
| streamlined enough, so the conversation goes like this:
|
| > 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?
| KMnO4 wrote:
| Yes, 33mail can modify the reply-to so that it proxies the
| emails back through the alias.
|
| So emailing longrandomstring@33mail.com will reply TO the
| original address FROM the alias address.
| burnished wrote:
| I believe this one is for temporary and PUBLIC emails, probably
| not like anything you have used before if account recovery is a
| concern.
| browningstreet wrote:
| I got one of those duck.com addresses but I have no idea what it
| is or how to re-access it.
| abhinavg wrote:
| I'm a happy duck.com address user. I can answer these
| questions:
|
| 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.
| tpoacher wrote:
| Nice.
|
| 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.
| mdaniel wrote:
| this is not "open source," it's source available as the repo is
| missing any licensing terms. I dunno what the legal standing is
| of these package management fields
| <https://github.com/psarna/edgemail/blob/master/Cargo.toml#L5>
| since I believe at least npm defaults to some very liberal
| license that almost no one looks at any further and puts a
| sibling license file in their repo with the actual terms
|
| Also, bold move implementing your own smtpd:
| https://github.com/psarna/edgemail/blob/master/src/smtp.rs#L...
| burnished wrote:
| 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'? Or more broadly can express written or verbal
| permission count?
|
| Just interested in it hypothetically, in practice specifying a
| license in the text seems like a no brainer
| doodlesdev wrote:
| > So the absence of a license means it defaults to exclusive
| copy right
|
| Yes > but can advertising it as open source
| be construed as a 'license'
|
| I'm pretty sure the answer is no. There are no terms
| specified, no definition provided to what "open-source" is,
| and no information as to _what_ is open-source (i.e. the
| files, the compilation result, etc.).
|
| 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).
| mdaniel wrote:
| I'm for sure not a lawyer, but in my mental model just saying
| "open source" is not the same as "open source under what
| license?" since there have been an absolutely staggering
| amount of discussions on this very site about the distinction
| between Apache, AGPL, GPL, LGPL, and that's not even getting
| into the non-free licenses that are often erroneously labeled
| as "open source"
| doodlesdev wrote:
| According to the Cargo.toml of that project the code is
| licensed under both MIT or Apache, whichever you choose,
| however it's not clear which files are under that license
| or whether this was even intentional. Generally, you'd
| expect the project to provide one or more LICENSE files and
| some explanation about the license in the README, along
| with license headers on top of every file where that
| licensing is relevant.
| FpUser wrote:
| >"All inboxes are public."
|
| What does that mean exactly? Hopefully not that everybody else
| can look at my "throwaway" inbox.
| racingmars wrote:
| >>"All inboxes are public."
|
| >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.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Your email address is the secret, so yeah anyone who sends you
| email can see your inbox.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-12 23:00 UTC)