best alternatives to fastmail? can't take any more outages - Page 8

rblon · 11 Jun 2011, 04:51 AM

Documentation? What happened to trial and error?

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisjj

I wouldn't feel safe with that since it does not accord with: "Each target should be of the form 'name@domain'".

It certainly shouldn't make you feel unsafe

**Shelded** · 11 Jun 2011, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fryr

2. Configure Fastmail with Domain and set up rule that forwards all mail to Gmail (Backup)

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisjj

That could be a really bad idea. Gmail barred me from doing that from my non-FM server (periodically blocking the server for sending too much unsolicited mail) and Fastmail requested me not to do it from the Fastmail server (for avoidance of Fastmail being likewise blocked).

I've been puzzling over what this post meant. As I understand it, it would not be a bad idea, and I can't imagine either Google or FM making such requests. Many of us are doing just this and not getting rebuked. I did this and stopped doing it mainly because Google was bouncing attachment types that FM accepted, causing false alarm to the senders.

chrisjj · 11 Jun 2011, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shelded

You're not going to get anywhere with this insofar as telling anyone something new.

Just watch. It will be corrected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shelded

It's an ambiguity.

Incorrect, Neither statement is ambiguous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shelded

Don't think this is an undocumented discovery.

Agreed. Simply that it is a failure to accord with the UI labelling I quoted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shelded

It's something the FM guys must have shared with us, IMO.

It is in the Help.

chrisjj · 11 Jun 2011, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shelded

I can't imagine either Google or FM making such requests.

I didn't say Google requested. I said Google blocked. See here http://www.emaildiscussions.com/show...75&postcount=5 .

The request from Fastrmail was by Rob in private mail.

**Shelded** · 11 Jun 2011, 01:26 PM

Since you're in the mood to split hairs, I should point out that I did not say you said Google "requested" anything.

This still did little to explain the post, except that I'm less interested because it doesn't seem generally applicable. That kind of mail volume belongs elsewhere anyway, IMO.

I have point-by-point rebuttals to your other post, but I don't see why it was posted and I see no value in pursuing it. My major point was that the format we recommended is valid, is not a hack, and is done at their direction years ago here on the forum. If you need permission to use the feature before you will, suit yourself. If I had your mail volume I probably would be cautious too.

chrisjj · 11 Jun 2011, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shelded

I should point out that I did not say you said Google "requested" anything.

Could you explain then what you meant by :

I can't imagine either Google or FM making such requests.

?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shelded

If I had your mail volume I probably would be cautious too.

Very wise.

**Shelded** · 11 Jun 2011, 11:49 PM

Here is the part you aren't quoting "I've been puzzling over what this post meant. As I understand it[...]" But don't bother now, I've lost interest and don't share your agenda, which doesn't appear to be on the thread topic here.

**Sherry** · 12 Jun 2011, 05:41 AM

Moderator:

As this thread has been going a little off topic with personal remarks going back and forth I feel it's time to let it get back on topic.

sflorack, part of what you said in your posts shows you do not understand the discussion going on so there was no need for you to comment:

Quote:

"I don't even have any idea what this discussion is about, but find your willingness to continue making baseless claims very off-putting; where it has no place in intelligent conversation.

Those posts have been deleted "twice". Please refrain from re-posting the same thing and stick to the original topic. Thank you.

sflorack · 12 Jun 2011, 05:51 AM

Sherry,

Both posts were deleted by Shelded without explanation -- something I've always seen the better moderators do. I reposted (many hours later) simply because I had no way of knowing if it was moderated or by my own mistake.

My apologies for being one of those not on topic.

chrisjj · 12 Jun 2011, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shelded

But don't bother now, I've lost interest and don't share your agenda, which doesn't appear to be on the thread topic here.

You are mistaken. I am pointing out a very real risk with a solution proposed. The fact that you don't have sufficient spam volume to have experienced the risk does not mean there is no such risk. It means only your experience is inadequate to qualify you to comment on the risk. I see your casting doubt without evidence as irresponsible. As I said, Fastmail specifically requested me not to forward all my mail from Fastmail to Gmail since this would risk the Fastmail server getting blocked. If you are disputing the accuracy of my account, simply come out and say so clearly, and I shall ask Fastmail for permission to post the correspondence.

**Shelded** · 12 Jun 2011, 07:21 AM

I hereby willingly award all fun points to chrisjj who seems to be the final person who has any concept of what we were discussing. I never did understand him, and claimed not to, and since the link in post #109, I don't need to.

BTW today I learned that the comments moderators write on deleted posts are not visible to non-moderators. Whodathunk.

**ReuvenNY** · 12 Jun 2011, 09:27 AM

This thread is now closed. If there is any further interest in this topic, please start a new thread.

12 Jun 2011, 09:27 AM	#117
ReuvenNY Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: New York Posts: 4,259	Moderator's comment This thread is now closed. If there is any further interest in this topic, please start a new thread.

11 Jun 2011, 01:26 PM	#110
Shelded Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USA Northwest Posts: 3,849	Since you're in the mood to split hairs, I should point out that I did not say you said Google "requested" anything. This still did little to explain the post, except that I'm less interested because it doesn't seem generally applicable. That kind of mail volume belongs elsewhere anyway, IMO. I have point-by-point rebuttals to your other post, but I don't see why it was posted and I see no value in pursuing it. My major point was that the format we recommended is valid, is not a hack, and is done at their direction years ago here on the forum. If you need permission to use the feature before you will, suit yourself. If I had your mail volume I probably would be cautious too.

11 Jun 2011, 11:49 PM	#112
Shelded Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USA Northwest Posts: 3,849	Here is the part you aren't quoting "I've been puzzling over what this post meant. As I understand it[...]" But don't bother now, I've lost interest and don't share your agenda, which doesn't appear to be on the thread topic here.

12 Jun 2011, 05:51 AM	#114
sflorack The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 2,937	Sherry, Both posts were deleted by Shelded without explanation -- something I've always seen the better moderators do. I reposted (many hours later) simply because I had no way of knowing if it was moderated or by my own mistake. My apologies for being one of those not on topic.

12 Jun 2011, 07:21 AM	#116
Shelded Moderator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USA Northwest Posts: 3,849	I hereby willingly award all fun points to chrisjj who seems to be the final person who has any concept of what we were discussing. I never did understand him, and claimed not to, and since the link in post #109, I don't need to. BTW today I learned that the comments moderators write on deleted posts are not visible to non-moderators. Whodathunk.