I have tried switching to fastmail and it was incredibly painful. In a nutshell, Microsoft/Hotmail and possibly other providers started to throw my emails to people to spam. I've missed out on important things in the physical world because of this. I've invested a lot of time trying to debug the issue. To their credit, Fastmail's customer service was excellent and they really tried to resolve the issues but in the end could not.
Also, fastmail web UI was okay but not great. I do like the new GMail UI better.
Microsoft is particularly annoying. If I send mail from my domain via my server in Rackspace's cloud to my @outlook.com address, Microsoft classifies it as spam. I tell it that the mail is not spam--and the next one still gets classified as spam. I've done this several times now, and it is still classifying them as spam. How many freaking times do you have to tell Microsoft that something is not spam before it learns?
Compare to Yahoo. The first one to my @yahoo.com address was classified as spam, but then after I told Yahoo that it was not spam, subsequent ones come through fine.
I know right? Seriously, Office 365 spam management is a joke. Not only do Microsoft's OWN HOLIDAY PROMOTION EMAILS get marked as SPAM.. but whenever I mark an item or whitelist a domain at the Exchange level it completely ignores the rules.
Has anyone ever successfully got SPAM management working using the native O365 tools?
Was about to say this. The fact that MSFT even throws their own promo emails into spam just tells me that there is no special preference kind of bias towards their own stuff, which is imo a feature, not a bug.
I have a custom domain in Fastmail, and after I did all of the DKIM/SPF and other email validation stuff (took an afternoon via their helpfiles) and got a green light from a couple authentication verifier services, I haven't had a single problem with being labeled as spam.
I had this problem in the beginning (specifically and only with hotmail), but it solved itself at some point. No idea if it was something that fastmail did or that hotmail did.
I have been using fastmail for one year and had zero other problems. If we don't move away from gmail, we will lose email, which is one of the only true decentralized and free protocols still left.
I have used fastmail for all my business accounts for years. I have never had problems with deliverability. But I did warm the accounts using best practices recommended online to start.
Basically, you have to take a set of ritual steps to "warm" various email resources (such as domains, addresses, and IPs) to be flagged as "known" and "legitimate". For example, IP addresses: you should send warming emails to a valid address that you control for a few weeks to just show up on lists without having spam marks against you.
In many places euthanasia is legal and plenty of people chose to die than continue living, that shows that there are people and situations where dying is better than living under any conditions. It's unfortunate that's the choice they are making but it may be the better choice for them. How do we know being a disconnected brain in a container is an improvement over their situation?
I always thought a good answer to this was "well I'd think about copying a car if I could..."
How sweet would that be? Friend gets a car, I make a copy of it at zero cost!
I guess the standard answer to that would be "but you're depriving the manufacturer of money to cover the costs of providing the car in the first place"
Which is reasonable, but I'd have to question their business model if their manufacturing costs are so high and yet I can copy it for free ...
Nah, the standard answer isn't reasonable. They're depriving themselves of that money by choosing a business model that matches neither the customer needs nor physical reality.
In hopes it'll one day turn into a catchphrase: no one is entitled to have a particular business model working for them forever.
In fairness I'd give them that much. There is a quid pro quo between me having a need, and a business providing that need. If it's not commercially viable for a business to then perhaps my need may go unfulfilled.
What irks me is that such a gracious outlook leaves me open to being gouged by profiteers.
How about simply visiting Australia without your corporate laptop? Or take the laptop but without the means to connect to the corporate network/accounts?
Visit Australia, get the notice, go back to wherever you live and work, and either implement the backdoor or get kicked whenever you return to Australia one more time.
People tend to be deeply attached to seeing their family and friends, so the mere hint that the reality of such laws could be purposely weaponizing those emotions is nothing shy of vicious. As a Dane who lives in Brazil I’d be devastated if I had to choose between the ability to see my family once a year or my ideals. It would tear me apart. To not be 100% sure I could go to my parents should one of them fall gravely ill e.g. would be heartbreaking.
I mean I love you people and I believe you are entitled to freedom, privacy and security but that is not a choice I’d make lightly. I do not envy Australian developers right now, not only is their marketability severely reduced, the emotional cost of taking a stand can be downright crushing to the spirit.
This is just.. evil. There is no other word for it.
Aren't you then trapped, as implementing a backdoor in foreign software on foreign soil on command of a different state might lead to charges of espionage in the country you are residing in?
I think once centralized, there is inherently something wrong with blockchains. There is always chance of bait and switch, even though you trust amazon.
Sure but QLDB isn't a blockchain. Blockchain is just one of many things that can be implemented on top of it. You could implement the same thing with an SQL database and signed history tables.
Because the browser (or the user) has no way of knowing if the certificate changed for a good reason. Certificate pinning tries to tackle this at the CA level but it's not perfect (in a nutshell, browsers know that google.com can be signed only by a certain small subset of CAs).
The effort to prove a certificate is being changed for a good reason should be with the site owner, so I perhaps the standard could build in some sort of sign-by-previous-cert combined with mandatory information fields.
The certificate pinning of CA is not that useful.
So google rotate a lot of certs, but I bet 95% of the internet use one cert for one server until it expires. Google could fall in in line.
That's exactly why I like Spotify - it doesn't shove the social nonsense down my throat like everybody else. Don't take it the bad way but I don't care what you, or anybody else with very few exceptions, thinks about this or that album.
Neither do I. I'm very selective about my music, which is why I only followed very specific people on rdio, which led to very valuable social circles. I only saw their recommendations and what was trending within this community.
This doesn't happen at all with Spotify. And maybe it wouldn't work due to the rather mainstream audience / user base the service has. The problem remains however: The music I listen to and buy is very rarely discovered on Spotify. I can't share the rave reviews of Discover Weekly at all. - it's very mediocre to me.
How much do you listen to music on Spotify? If you were rating music on scale of 1-10, how much music that you listen to on Spotify is at a 7 or above?
My Discover Weekly used to be pretty mediocre until I started better curating my playlists. I'd grab a playlist, throw it on in the background and call it good enough. There were certainly songs that I didn't like playing, and the algorithm had no way of differentiating what I did and didn't like.
I pruned my playlists so that the music playing is only stuff that I highly enjoy. This made a huge change to my Discover Weekly and my Daily Mixes.
I use Spotify as a way to preview music in order to make a buying decision - so there may be a lot of confusing things for Spotify to figure out. However I also maintain many playlists which are large and only consist of songs I like.
Yet, Discover Weekly keeps recommending me music that is already known to me (or even part of those playlists) or simply not that relevant. My Bandcamp feed does a better job.
