Table of Contents
Running Your Own Email Srever
I run my own mail server. I have run it since about 1995, initially on a 28k8 modem connection but the connection improved as technology became cheaper and now I’m running it on a VM on a Hetzner server which is also running domains for some small businesses. I make a small amount of money running mail services for those companies but generally not enough to make it profitable. From a strictly financial basis I might be better off just using a big service, but I like having control over my own email. If email doesn’t arrive I can read the logs to find out why.
I repeatedly have issues of big services not accepting mail. The most recent is the MS services claiming that my IP has a bad ratio of good mail to spam and blocked me so I had to tunnel that through a different IP address. It seems that the way things are going is that if you run a small server companies like MS can block you even though your amount of spam is low but if you run a large scale service that is horrible for sending spam then you don’t get blocked.
For most users they just use one of the major email services (Gmail or Microsoft) and find that no-one blocks them because those providers are too big to block and things mostly work. Until of course the company decides to cancel their account.
The Latest News
The latest news is that MS is shutting down services for the International Court of Justice after a panel of ICC judges issued arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu [1] . This is now making politicians realise the issues of email accounts hosted outside their jurisdiction.
What we need is for each independent jurisdiction to have it’s own email infrastructure, that means controlling DNS servers for their domains, commercial and government mail services on those domains, running the servers for those services on hardware located in the jurisdiction and run by people based in that jurisdiction and citizens of it. I say independent jurisdiction because there are groups like the EU which have sufficient harmony of laws to not require different services. With the current EU arrangements I don’t think it’s possible for the German government to block French people from accessing email or vice versa.
While Australia and New Zealand have a long history of cooperation there’s still the possibility of a lying asshole like Scott Morrison trying something on so New Zealanders shouldn’t feel safe using services run in Australia. Note that Scott Morrison misled his own parliamentary colleagues about what he was doing and got himself assigned as a secret minister [2] demonstrating that even conservatives can’t trust someone like him. With the ongoing human rights abuses by the Morrison government it’s easy to imagine New Zealand based organisations that protect human rights being treated by the Australian government in the way that the ICC was treated by the US government.
The Problem with Partial Solutions
Now it would be very easy for the ICC to host their own mail servers and they probably will do just that in the near future. I’m sure that there are many companies offering to set them up accounts in a hurry to deal with this (probably including some of the Dutch companies I’ve worked for). Let’s imagine for the sake of discussion that the ICC has their own private server, the US government could compel Google and MS to block the IP addresses of that server and then at least 1/3 of the EU population won’t get mail from them. If the ICC used email addresses hosted on someone else’s server then Google and MS could be compelled to block the addresses in question for the same result. The ICC could have changing email addresses to get around block lists and there could be a game of cat and mouse between the ICC and the US government but that would just be annoying for everyone.
The EU needs to have services hosted and run in their jurisdiction that are used by the vast majority of the people in the country. The more people who are using services outside the control of hostile governments the lesser the impact of bad IT policies by those hostile governments.
One possible model to consider is the Postbank model. Postbank is a bank run in the Netherlands from post offices which provides services to people deemed unprofitable for the big banks. If the post offices were associated with a mail service you could have it government subsidised providing free service for citizens and using government ID if the user forgets their password. You could also have it provide a cheap service for non-citizen residents.
Other Problems
What will the US government do next? Will they demand that Apple and Google do a remote-wipe on all phones run by ICC employees? Are they currently tracking all ICC employees by Android and iPhone services?
Huawei’s decision to develop their own phone OS was a reasonable one but there’s no need to go that far. Other governments could setup their own equivalent to Google Play services for Android and have their own localised Android build. Even a small country like Australia could get this going for the services of calendaring etc. But the app store needs a bigger market. There’s no reason why Android has to tie the app store to the services for calendaring etc. So you could have a per country system for calendaring and a per region system for selling apps.
The invasion of Amazon services such as Alexa is also a major problem for digital sovereignty. We need government controls about this sort of thing, maybe have high tariffs on the import of all hardware that can only work with a single cloud service. Have 100+% tariffs on every phone, home automation system, or networked device that is either tied to a single cloud service or which can’t work in a usable manner on other cloud services.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.