DNSSEC failure is just the result of many of the nameservers serving .ru and other tlds not responding. This is especially observable if you are IPv4 only.
I think the author of the article makes a few mistakes in his
diagnostic.
You should never use a service where you cannot report a problem or
where the administrators are out of reach. Of course it includes the
"big techs" but they're not alone.
The underlying issue is that most of them delegate their filtering
decisions to third parties. And many of them rely on the same
centralized IP and domain blacklists.
Because of how the filtering is done, the End User generally never
discovers that any filtering is happening. Only the sender may be
notified by his mail relay of the delivery failure.
Of course, the blacklisters are not going to put the IP addresses of the
big Email Vendors into their lists, if they did, millions of people
would be notified of delivery failures with the risk of them discovering
who is responsible.
""" Unfortunately, the computing power required to filter millions of
emails per minute is huge. That's why the email industry has chosen a
shortcut to reduce that cost. """
Even 20 years ago the computing power wasn't a problem. He probably has
this impression because he's been using SpamAssassin. The real reason
for why they are taking the "shortcut" is carelessness toward their
service and users.
The excuse of saying that you should block messages before delivering
them because it takes disk space is also heavily promoted by the
blacklisters. Indeed, if the message was simply delivered to a Spam
folder with the actual reason for which it has been classified as such,
users could discover who is responsible for the filtering.
The good news is that there is some success in getting the big email
services to remove centralized blacklists.
Another problem is that too many administrators of smaller services are
not even aware of their reliance on blacklists. Sometimes this is
because they have used an easy installation script for convenience, or
because they've copy/pasted a configuration. And of course, there are
those who do not understand the ethical implications of doing such a
thing or are just foolish.
""" So, starting today, the MX records of my personal domain no longer
point to the IP of my personal server. They now point to one of the Big
Email Providers. """
This doesn't make any sense. The MX records are for inbound, not
outbound, he could have used a different relay for sending mails yet
still use his own relay for receiving (perhaps he doesn't know that?).
Instead, he switches to a provider that is known for contributing to the
problem. This is... disturbing.
DDG sucks in many ways. Besides the engine performing quite poorly, it also relies on third parties and so will return filtered results they may not even control. They also never supported IPv6 and are hosted at Microsoft or Amazon.
I agree with most of what you are saying but this is silly. I get "Microsoft and Amazon bad" but basically saying "host your own infrastructure worldwide and index your own corpus or you are a bad actor is rather inane.
They may not host their own infrastructure, even though I think something like DDG should. But they can choose a better network, better technically and ethically.
