Hi,
according to this thread:
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!category-topic/gmail/GyeMcHv1U-g[1-25-false]
Gmail isn't allowing anymore "Send through Gmail" option.
Eduardo.-
Yep. Existing email-address setups are grandfathered, but no new ones
can be added via the UI.
It's probably a mix of "let's support the ecosystem by only sending
mail from servers authorized by the domain holder" and "let's sell
more Google for Work email hosting".
If it really was more the former, there would be a "if your SPF
records include:_spf.google.com, you can still do it" option, IMO.
Royce
As a replacement, you can use Amazon SES and verify single email addresses
if you don't have access over the whole domain.
If it really was more the former, there would be a "if your SPF
records include:_spf.google.com, you can still do it" option, IMO.
Manager: So, you're saying if we just check the SPF record when they set up the account, we could still let them do it.
Tech: Yes, except if they also use DKIM; then it's a no-go.
Manager: Okay, so if their SPF record includes Google's and they don't have DKIM, then we'd be okay?
Tech: Yes...but if they don't have an SPF record when they set up the account and then add one later, we'd still be in trouble.
Manager: ...
Tech: I guess we could do periodic checks for SPF records on their domains and either disable sending or send them an alert if an SPF record is created that could problems?
Manager: ...okay...and then it'd be okay?
Tech: Well, if they don't have DKIM to start and then add it, that would also be a problem.
Manager: ...
Tech: ...but in addition to doing checks for new/altered SPF records, we could also do checks if they add DKIM after adding the account.
Manager: ...
Tech: ...or we could just turn it off.
Manager: Works for me.
The scenario largely rings true, except that I would think it
reasonable to tell people that it if it breaks because they added
DKIM, it's not Google's problem to fix.
But your larger point is valid. Requiring Google for Work
automatically means that Google is dealing with geeks who manage the
entire domain, instead of chasing failure modes for individual end
users.
That being said, domain holders could signal that they're deliberately
opting in domain-wide by using a different SPF include, like
'_spf-fwd.google.com', and agreeing (with a checkbox?) that chasing
DKIM is their baby.
Royce
Not if you want people to accept your mail. Thanks to Amazon's policy
of (a) allowing unlimited spam and (b) ignoring all abuse reports [1],
it's long since become a best practice to refuse all SMTP traffic from
amazonses.com, compute-1.amazonaws.com, compute.amazonaws.com and whatever
other subdomains they have/will have associated with that part of their
operation.
---rsk
[1] Which they don't make easy to file. Instead of accepting reports at
abuse@, like every other responsible, professional, properly managed
operation, they force complainers to jump through hoops...in order
to file a complaint...which they studiously ignore.
You would also need to not care about sending email to IPv6 domains.
Owen
It is Google's problem. Because they need to check every time, before sending, if they are allowed to send emails. Otherwise they would/could be spamming (depends on your favorite definition of spam).
David Hofstee
Deliverability Management
MailPlus B.V. Netherlands (ESP)
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
It is Google's problem. Because they need to check every time, before sending, if they
are allowed to send emails. Otherwise they would/could be spamming (depends on your
favorite definition of spam).
Sort of. This is related to the great DMARC debacle earlier this
year, in which Yahoo and AOL took a reasonable anti-phishing tool and
repurposed it to sort of close the barn door after each had separate
huge thefts of user credentials and address books, with horrible
consequences to mailing lists and legitimate third party mailers.
For more details, see http://jl.ly/Email/aoldmarc.html
R's,
John