OpenInbox.com

[jeffpan]

It?s a paid service only.
UI is simple and clean.
They run on AWS totally.
A few domains can be used.
If you want another mailbox then give a try.

[TenFour]

Looks interesting, but as a general rule I never sign up for services that don't provide their pricing upfront. As far as I can tell the only hint at what the pricing might be is the statement

As low as $1.50/month

. You have to sign up to be able to see pricing. If you select a user name you also get to see they have some alternative domains too, but it is an odd collection. Their website is too bare bones to be trustworthy.

[jeffpan]

And for their domain,
I always confuse it with Henry's OpenMbox.

[janusz]

Originally Posted by TenFour

as a general rule I never sign up for services that don't provide their pricing upfront. [...] You have to sign up to be able to see pricing.

Strictly speaking this is not true. After you select your name & domain and set your password, you'll see a page like this with the prices. That's before you pay (and of course you may quit at this point.
I agree this isn't very user-friendly.

[TenFour]

I guess they hide their prices because they are expensive! Their cheapest plan costs a lot more and offers way less than Purelymail, for example: https://purelymail.com/pricing And, Purelymail puts that information right on their homepage and near the top--you can't miss it. That's the way to do it.

[jeffpan]

Originally Posted by TenFour

I guess they hide their prices because they are expensive! Their cheapest plan costs a lot more and offers way less than Purelymail, for example: https://purelymail.com/pricing And, Purelymail puts that information right on their homepage and near the top--you can't miss it. That's the way to do it.

they seem to calculate price based on the length of username?

[TenFour]

Yes, they charge more for short usernames. Weird! Not sure I like their spam/junk philosophy either:

OpenInbox has a different philosophy. Instead of accepting everything, spam is outright rejected based on policies you control.

The problem with that is that I frequently find things in my spam/junk folders that I want to read. If they just reject that email outright I will never see it.

[jeffpan]

Originally Posted by TenFour

Yes, they charge more for short usernames. Weird! Not sure I like their spam/junk philosophy either:

The problem with that is that I frequently find things in my spam/junk folders that I want to read. If they just reject that email outright I will never see it.

but gmail also reject email directly if that email doesn't have identity including spf and dkim.

[hadaso]

Originally Posted by TenFour

...If they just reject that email outright I will never see it.

But the sender will see that the message was not delivered (if the sender follows email protocols). And if it's based on user controlled policies then the user can choose not to reject. I think that rejection (letting the sender know that the message was not delivered) is better than delivery into a Junk mail folder that most people never check, or totally discarding email that some providers do without without any opt-out mechanism for recipients.

[TenFour]

There are pluses and minuses to each junk/spam system I have used. In general, I almost never have received notice from anyone that their mail is not being delivered to any email address I have used, no matter which provider. Relying on someone to notify me that their email is not being delivered is hopeless, in my opinion. Also, junk/spam detection has always been a mess, with every provider I have used, inlcuding the big ones. IMHO Gmail is the best by far, but they still mess up from time to time. For example, sometimes routine messages go right into junk/spam one week, even if they were delivered the previous week. Then they might randomly be rejected again in the future. Outlook/Microsoft is one of the worst for this. It is so bad that routine internal emails within our own organization frequently ended up in Junk no matter what we did. In general, I prefer a light hand on identifying junk/spam, and prefer it be put into a folder for me to examine.

[chrisretusn]

Originally Posted by jeffpan

but gmail also reject email directly if that email doesn't have identity including spf and dkim.

Learned something today.

I would prefer no spam filtering from the provider. Yahoo is the worst at placing good emails in spam. I use the Yahoo App to check Junk every day. almost every day I have to move emails to the Inbox. Today I moved aproperly ID's (as Junk) email in Junk to the Inbox because I want to see it.

I use Claws Mail with Bogofilter. All emails are first run through bogofilter which assigns a X-Bogosity header with Spam, Unsure and Ham plus a spamicity score to each email. Next are a set of filters that put expected emails (filtered normally from sender) to folders, emails that get past the filters are place in the Inbox (ham), Spam-Unsure (Unsure) or Spam folders.

[SideshowBob]

Originally Posted by jeffpan

but gmail also reject email directly if that email doesn't have identity including spf and dkim.

I'm not sure exactly what that means; my domain has SPF, but has third-party DKIM and gets delivered. With some exceptions, they do reject email that fails DMARC with a reject policy.

[SideshowBob]

You can use IPv4 or IPv6* ...

* IPv6 coming Q3 2023

It doesn't bode well that that text hasn't been updated in at least a year.