Re: Permanent email address?
On Sun, 15 May 2022 18:33:46 +0100
Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun 15 May 2022 at 17:53:35 +0100, Joe wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 15 May 2022 17:50:34 +0200
> > Markus Schönhaber <debian-user@list-post.mks-mail.de> wrote:
> >
> > > 15.05.22, 16:31 +0200, Reco:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 10:08:57AM -0400,rhkramer@gmail.com
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >> My understanding is that the (only?) way to do get such a
> > > >> permanent address is to have my own domain and assign an email
> > > >> address in that domain to me?
> > > > If you have to be in control over sending and receiving e-mail
> > > > you'll need your own MTA. That implies a domain you control.
> > >
> > > No. The OP wants control over their mail address. For that, they
> > > need to own the address' domain. That's the all-important point.
> > > And if they do, it doesn't matter whether they operate the
> > > domain's MX themselves or delegate that to someone else.
> > >
> > > OTOH, operating an MTA doesn't necessarily make you owner or
> > > controller of the domain(s) it is responsible for. I, for example,
> > > operate an MTA for some domains I neither own nor control. And
> > > that is not too uncommon a business model.
> > >
> >
> > The OP makes mention of mail 'going through' Google. I believe these
> > days anyone who handles your email has reserved themselves the
> > right to read that email and use any data in it as it thinks fit.
> > Even if this isn't explicit in T&Cs I'm quite sure it's normal
> > practice. I think the only way to avoid this is not to let your
> > incoming email sit in anyone else's server i.e. to run an MTA. This
> > is independent of domain ownership.
>
> Sending an email is equivalent to sending a postcard via Royal
> Mail. Any machines through which the mail passes have access to
> its contents. It is inherent in the system. Encryption, anyone?
>
For genuinely confidential stuff, certainly. More common is the
harvesting of Internet purchases and the sale to advertisers. I get
more than enough spam already.
--
Joe
Reply to: