Say I want to test the waters for selfhosting email, and I already have my how domains setup with SaaS like Google workspace and equivalent. Is there a way to setup mx records so that both google and my own server gets email for a while? This would be useful to test the waters over a few months before fully migrating
Not with MX but, look at google's split domain documentation. You can either have them handle the domain and forward you a copy, or you can have your own domain be the primary and forward to google. I have been using the latter for a few years now since not all of the users in the domain are using Google Workspace. They have a special address for forwarding to so you don't get into a loop. It has been working flawlessly for us.
You can set up a lower-priority MX to point to Google, so if your server fails, then email is delivered to Google. But if your server is misconfigured and returns permanent 5xx errors for legitimate emails, then it won't work, and the emails won't be delivered to Google.
No easy answer here. Individual MTAs or a cluster of them typically live under one unique domain. In your scenario, you'd have to point your existing records (or just MX) to your self-hosted instance, and have your self-hosted instance relay/autoforward to Gmail under a different domain. This might entail simply setting your Gmail back to @gmail.com.
Not really, SMTP relays will only send messages once, to one server.
But it’s not receiving that is the problem, that is generally fine, if ports are open at ISP / network level. It is the sending that is often tricky. Sending email on the other hand can be done from multiple servers (if SPF correctly configured) And nothing prevents you from sending email directly from your own relay. You could try that, and reception would not be affected.
I never thoughtabout thia beyond analogous (imho) situations, so take this counter with huge grain of salt:
Ownership distributions of critical companies have been tried: post-soviet companies were privatized and their shares distributed "fairly" among the population. We know what happend to them afterwards (ownership did not stay distributed for long and I'm not sure it was due to lack of general education).
Ultimately isnt the point of private companies (publicaly listed companies included) that it creates a 'us vs them' situation where not everyone is meant to benefits equaly?
I mean, all this public grandstanding between sides is exhausting:
- apple says its walled garden is the best for consumers so they should have a spine and push back
- the EU has been pushing their Brussels effect around because it's also good for consumers so they should just stiffen their spine and stop dragging courts cases and media attention for years. Not only that: all the EU complains on how Apple has not paid their fair share of taxes by using European tax loopholes. They should just keep their spine stiff and impose a massive penalty on Apple non-compliance!
In the end it's a win-win isn't it? Europe gets a chance to come up with local players to fill in the market for a walled garden device and apple keeps their reputation with consumers
This is under appreciated, low effort'ish perspective. The simple fact of disabling all notifications (but for a couple basic ones like calendar) returns a good 80% of control back to you.
Pair with battery saving mode - that on iOS and Android - even locks involuntary notifications and saves you from battery anxiety.
I’m always blown away, when someone shows me something on their phone, let’s see a photo or something, and during the brief demo, I see an on slot of random notifications popping up. Retailers, email, promotions, etc..
Like seriously? I completely blew my mind. I think I basically have just iMessage and calendar.
And, far as I can tell, that's the vast majority of users. Like, most people live like this. I think they don't know how to disable that shitshow (or even that it's possible) and have just learned to live with it. And we wonder why everything's shit.
I have always seen people - the same people - being able to use arguments based on letter or spirit of the law depending on the situation. I'm not seeing a trend towards one or the other.
Some call it hypocrisy - and normally the same people are capable of displaying hypocrisy in other arguments too.
Honestly, this move from Google will probably do more to breaking the duopoly (iOS and certified Android) than anything else. As alternative flavors of Android start appearing hopefully a more open - and less invasive(?) - fork would appear
> Our threat is not Russia bringing its troops across the Pyrenees - Pedro Sanchez
> He also wrote that a 5 percent defense spending goal would jeopardize the country’s welfare system,
> Sánchez said that 17% of this year’s military spending would go to natural disaster relief.
The Spaniards are the only ones outright saying it, but seem very obvious that the silent (and overwhelmingly economical) majority in EU think this way
reply