I’m looking for an email service that issues email addresses with an onion variant. E.g. so users can send a message with headers like this:

From: replyIfYouCan@hi3ftg6fgasaquw6c3itzif4lc2upj5fanccoctd5p7xrgrsq7wjnoqd.onion  
To: someoneElse@clearnet_addy.com

I wonder if any servers in the onionmail.info pool of providers can do this. Many of them have VMAT, which converts onion email addresses to clearnet addresses (not what I want). The docs are vague. They say how to enable VMAT (which is enabled by default anyway), and neglect to mention how to disable VMAT. Is it even possible to disable VMAT? Or is there a server which does not implement VMAT, which would send msgs to clearnet users that have onion FROM addresses?

  • @breakingcups
    link
    12 months ago

    Your information is way out of date. Almost every server tries to resolve the sending fqdn, if only to check spf and dkim records. The sending domain not existing will usually leave your messages in spam or outright blocked.

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      0
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      If you monitor IRC channels on email servers, you’ll find there are plenty of email admins unwilling to even go through the dkim and dmarc hoops. An fqdn check not on the sending server but on the FROM field of a msg is over-zealously above and beyond dkim and dmarc. I’m quite fine with not reaching these fringe servers. I can always decide from the bounce msg whether it’s worth my effort to dignify their excessive hoops with a transmission to their persnickety liking.

      • @breakingcups
        link
        02 months ago

        Oh yeah, fringe servers such as checks notes Gmail and Microsoft. Let us know how that goes!

        • @[email protected]OP
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Gmail doesn’t care what the FROM field address is. It can be entirely unrelated to the sending server and can be complete gibberish nonsense. MS did not care either back when MS did not consider dynamic IPs blacklisted. Now that MS wholly rejects dynamic IPs I’m not interested in retesting that anyway.