upvote
outlook.com and O365 are horrible to deliver to. We regularly get issues where we sent an email it was accepted by O365 but was never delivered to the mailbox. We have one person working at least half the time on resolving stuff like that. And that's from a respectably maintained SES egress with good reputation, DMARC, DKIM configured.
reply
There is a trick. Sign up with them, configure custom domain, but don’t set your MX records. On your MTA, route mail that goes to Outlook/Hotmail to go through their MSA with your Outlook credentials and headers stripped as if submitted directly by user. Outlook gets mail through their own MSA it trusts, rest of the world talks to your mail system directly. Replies still go to your MXes.

I haven’t productionized this setup (I send maybe a dozen emails a year) but it worked for me ad hoc a couple years back, when I had to send a mail to an Outlook-hosted address and they blackholed everything I tried to send while 250 OKing me.

reply
Funny, they have no problem handling mail for essentially every Fortune 500 company and others large and small.

It's always people self-hosting mail on a shared server in Moldova (because they think it makes them cool) that are complaining.

reply
Self hosting mail on a shared server in Moldova is basically the entire idea behind email (and the internet).

Which with cheap models like Jev as spam classifiers, this can now become a reality.

The problem is, Google and Microsoft have monopolized the entire email market, so their esoteric deliverability mysticism from 2007 still persists (basically blanket bans on entire IP spaces, locking out anybody trying to send emails on their own).

reply
People used to have party lines and leave their doors unlocked too, but it turns out the world is filled with bad actors and other assorted shitty people.

Email naturally followed this evolution.

reply
Nope, people self-hosting mail on their own hardware from their own basement in Serbia ;)

https://www.mimar.rs/blog/a-journey-of-my-mx-server-to-new-r...

And yes, it's cool not to have to let scum read your private communications :D

reply
> Outlook.com and similar are an anathema to email. This is why they tell you not to run a mail server .

It turns out that whoever has the most power is the most powerful. This is why distributed/decentralized systems cannot singlehandedly free us from tyranny, and why I find people who spend all their time preaching decentralized systems to be quite silly. We don't need better systems (well maybe we do but,,,), we need better education and awareness of how billionaires manipulate us; this goes beyond software.

reply
Complain all you want about the monopolists, and I do think you're right to do so, but a lot of their power comes from and is aimed at defeating the overwhelming flood of spam.

Mail, then emails, then home phones, then cell phones, then texts, then social media have been gradually rendered less and less usable by bad actors systematically abusing every single tool we try to use to communicate with one another to steal from us, lie to us, and manipulate our beliefs, and we'll just keep inventing and discarding new ways of communicating until we reckon with this.

reply
With cheaper AI classification models coming out every day now, the spam problem is on the cusp of basically being solved in every communication channel.

The only question is how many years the lazy network-effects monopolies (like Google, Microsoft, Verizon, etc) will hold this back from happening.

The optimist in me says this will unlock pathways to true decentralization of push communication protocols (like SMTP) instead of only have decentralization of pull-oriented protocols (like HTTP).

reply
On the contrary, with cheaper AI generation the spam problem becomes harder by the day.
reply
I don't think anyone believes it will "singlehandedly free us from tyranny", it's one component for a healthy ecosystem.
reply
Decentralization is not a bulletproof solution. It is a mitigation. Until someone gets 50 percent of market share. Then they can run havoc on the ecosystem with their own customized system.
reply
Just put codex in a continuous goal loop to keep you off the blacklists...give it whatever email / creds it needs to make the appropriate requests and make the needed changes (ofc tell it the guardrails it should follow).

Selfhosted email is likely easier now than it ever was before.

reply
Using self hosted email service is a big mistake in 2026.
reply
Why are we so willingly ceding one of the few widely used free and open protocols to a handful of $mega-billion providers?

Experience shows that the walls will get taller and the moats will get deeper.

reply
Because the noise is so loud now that people are basically just coping with the stresses of work life by taking the easy path in the home life.
reply
Because the protocol is flawed at its foundation - there is no good way to make sure that the person sending you something is a person and sending content you'd want to interact with. If the big providers weren't doing this stuff, we'd whine about the enormous amount of spam.

The solution is allow only communications that are demonstrably not spam and not unwanted.

There have been lots of proposals to this effect but maybe you have to put up two cents in a crypto wallet, which the other person can claim if the mail is unwanted. If someone takes your two cents, you remove them from your lists ASAP. The receiver doesn't benefit meaningfully from the 2c so they are unlikely to claim it. The sender is only damaged if a lot of different people claim the 2 cents. Maybe a few domains are default whitelisted even if they don't put up 2 cents, to protect against entities that are important but would be frequently spite-claimed (IRS, courts, and other similar). If you use a provider that doesn't whitelist, fine, but you're going to miss those emails.

Maybe the top 'spite claim' users are published and it becomes difficult to get people to agree to put up money to talk to you.

This reduces spam to the level of junk mail, which is still not totally trivial but is orders of magnitude more manageable.

reply
Spam is a super solved problem though and I'd rather have false negative spam than email oligarchy.
reply
Nearly all the spam I get has an email address from those providers.

Seems they are the disease not the cure

reply
Mine isn't from those email hosts, but it from google cloud or Azure typically (not AWS for whatever reason). Related, the gmail spam filter is terrible.
reply
>Related, the gmail spam filter is terrible.

It seems insane that gmail doesnt provide a way to automatically send a mail (eg based on domain, keywords, etc) to spam. I know theres block sender but for example aliexpress uses a different name for every email so that's useless.

reply
I think you misunderstand the disease.

What this is called is survivorship bias. The question I would ask is how much mail are you not seeing at all because it's dropped at the edge first thing because it's IP block listed?

Next, how much spam are you seeing from them because they and Google are the largest providers on Earth? Kind of like selecting a random person from the population in the US and going "look, it's a white guy". Yea, that's how statistics works.

Lastly, because the are good at blocking spam at the edge, then that's the last bastion of attack for spammers to put their efforts in if they want any return at all.

reply
> frequently spite-claimed (IRS, courts, and other similar)

These entities communicate via plain old mail, that costs more than 2 cents already.

reply
Sounds more like using outlook.com is a mistake. I've been running my own mail server for over 20 years and outlook.com is literally the only domain I have had problems with, and this is the only reason that I now send via Scaleway's free transactional email service.

The people working on outlook.com are just talentless amateurs - the rest knows how to do it right. It's a shame it's so widely used.

reply
I don't disagree, but what are your options when a giant portion of the population uses O365 and outlook.com? How are you going to get them to stop using it, so that legit emails from user-owned servers are not silently rejected?

Most of them wouldn't even care probably...

reply
I use a sending service. I would prefer not having to, but at least all inbound email goes directly to my server.
reply
Alt take: Using a Microsoft-hosted email service is a big mistake in 2026...
reply
That may be so, but you can't control what mail service your recipients use. So whether or not it's a bad idea, it can be your problem. That said I don't agree with OP that self-hosting mail is a bad idea.
reply
Yes you can.

User signs up, uses @outlook. Your app declines it and explains that they block with no way to remedy, and explain they are a bad vendor.

reply
Deeply unserious take.
reply
As unserious as you claim, we had this exact problem.

Emails would be accepted by Outlook.com, but would never deliver. We had SPF/DKIM/DMARC and full reporting. They RBL'ed us with no remedy.

We told the customer to not use outlook.com BECAUSE we told them we could not guarantee any delivery of messages.

reply
You can take my email server from my cold, dead hands.
reply
Proudly self-hosting since 2001. My mail server is in my basement. Do not know what you are talking about.
reply
How often would you be able to detect acceptance-but-non-delivery of your emails to office.com-hosted emails?
reply
Always? If emails are not answered you'll usually notice unless you're a Spammer
reply
MS live/hotmail/outlook would silently drop - although not for this DMARC, that gets a straight bounce.
reply
Why?

At the most you need to use an external service for delivery (usually because you have problems with MS) but you can still run your own server with no difficulties once you do that.

That said, DMARC is required by a lot of people now, so I do not think this particular issue is a problem.

I have been self hosting my my personal email (and for family). Few problems so far other than delivery to MS and I have recently moved a domain I use for work email over.

Oddly enough the MS problems come from hotmail, but not other services. If that is a problem, then pay a bit to have email delivered.

reply
It's not enough. I have a domain that I had a very long time but it is on an undesirable tld. I got it long before it was problematic. Outlook always puts my mail in the SPAM folder even though I have done everything I could. I even deliver through a trusted provider. Not on any spam list. DMARC, DKIM, SPF all set up. No dice.
reply
I've never had a problem not having dmarc. DMARC doesn't really mean anything. The security comes from DKIM (or SPF, but that's garbage)
reply
This is what google and microsoft want the make you think for obvious reasons.

Fortunate for those running their own servers is that they actually still get all the cool emails from people not complying.

reply
[flagged]
reply
Maybe don't self-host mail on a shitty $1/month VPS where 99% of the tenants are spammer scum?

This is not Microsoft's fault. The building's on fire and they're locking out the arsonists.

reply
Requiring DMARC may be good, but Outlook's approach is awful.

I was working for Microsoft when outlook.com launched and got a good email address that was my primary for more than a decade.

I had so many issues with things getting silently dropped with no recourse (2FA codes, account recovery mails, etc.) on so many sites that I finally gave up, reversed the stream, and had Outlook forward to GMail instead of vice versa. A few months after that, I realized that all my Outlook got was an enormous volume (hundreds of day) a spam and that all legitimate mail was going to my other accounts, so I turned it off entirely and haven't read that mailbox in over a year.

reply
> I had so many issues with things getting silently dropped with no recourse (2FA codes, account recovery mails, etc.) on so many sites

This is not unique to Microsoft and really the source's problem — they did something to get blocked in the first place.

Add in the fact that you're almost certainly not the only one impacted, and that they have no interest in fixing it, it screams incompetence on the source's part.

Been there, done that, good luck explaining the problem to the app's first-level support in the Philippines because it's not in their script.

> and had Outlook forward to GMail

Till the day GMail hits you with the "We couldn't verify it's you" bullshit and locks you out of your account forever. Good luck getting support from Google, the word is not in their lexicon.

reply
> This is not unique to Microsoft and really the source's problem — they did something to get blocked in the first place.

I've never encountered this issue with GMail. Delivery just works. I'm trying to think of the last false-positive spam flag I've had with GMail, and I've definitely never had mail be entirely dropped.

reply
I was viciously mean in my communication with the Outlook team when they said they “couldn’t” remove me from the blocklist. I pointed out that, as the operator of a perfectly compliant secure server their inability to deliver my mail is a technical failure on their end and one which I will be contacting their supervisor about and they somehow managed to scrabble together the heroic ability to delete my row from a table. Never back down from these bastards.
reply