[Freedombox-discuss] Independent email services

[Thomas Lord]

> There should not be that much centralisation worries
> as long as there are enough (sub)domain providers you
> can choose from.

For example, in my extended family there are a few
of us who are tech-savvy.  We could coordinate to
set up and share out domains, a fat pipe, hard-to-
admin services and so on ... while other relatives 
can still use their personal boxes for easier to admin
and most private stuff.

I think that is towards the right model of how these
things get deployed:  they are "sold" (or otherwise
got in the hands of) real world groups --- tribes ---
whether that means friends and family, clubs,
samizdat societies or what have you.   Within each group,
there are specialized roles.  

-t
-----
my Freedombox notes accumulating at http://basiscraft.com





On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 08:06 +0100, Michael Blizek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On 15:04 Sat 26 Feb     , Anthony Papillion wrote:
> ...
> > Asking everyone to run their own email server on the Freedom Box is fine
> > - especially if it's pretty transparent and 'just works' for them. But
> > the process of purchasing and associating a domain name with the box,
> > configuring the mail server to accept mail for the domain, configuring
> > MX records, etc, are all over the average users head.
> > 
> > When I was pursuing my project, my solution was to run an intermediate
> > domain service and then assign subdomains to each server sold. Then, all
> > the user would have to do is go into the interface and plug in their
> > subdomain and the service would just work. We'd (me, initially) would
> > handle everything on the backend domain side.
> > 
> > That, of course, would mean having an email address like
> > jdodson at jdodson.somedomain.net but it would streamline management a bit.
> 
> I guess you should not really ship a (sub)domain with the device, but rather
> give the users an easy way to register one for themselves. This should be
> possible to do without leaving the freedombox userinterface. There should not
> be that much centralisation worries as long as there are enough (sub)domain
> providers you can choose from.
> 
> You do not need an MX record either. If you do not have one, mails will be
> sent to the server in the A record instead - which is exactly what you need.
> 
> 	-Michi