Good disposable email

[ghost]

Please describe the scope.

The email provider list for signing up on sites could use a useful update

Please describe the solution.

emailnator,com is this cool site that gives you various throwaway emails on @gmail.com domains. I found this a long time ago when I searched for disposable email providers online and opened every possible result, back then it used to be on gmailnator.com but the domain died. I just searched the name gmailnator.com online again and found that their new site is emailnator.com.

NOTE: If you add this to your guide, please don't give me credit. I might be deleting this account soon and don't want remnants of it

[nopeitsnothing]

Disposable (burner) mailing systems tend to be abused fairly often as is the case here. The mailer does indeed work, but it sends mail from a known abuser and is flagged as potential spam.

Test: Privacy/IP leaks:

Result: Pass. Does not leak sender IP/exit and correctly sends. No IP leak occurs.

Test: Security:

Using Tor browser, send mail from site to destination (recipient address and IP redacted). System is disposable VM using Whonix and Tor browser.

Result: Recipient receives in about 2 minutes, but this is likely due to Tor latency.

Full headers of received mail:

... snip ...
Return-Path: <sisatmp@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on [redacted]
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Pyzor: Reported 0 times.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.5 required=6.0 shortcircuit=no autolearn=disabled
        version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Report:
        * -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at
        *      https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust
        *      [[redacted] listed in dnswl.dnsbl]
        *  2.0 BAYES_80 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 80 to 95%
        *      [score: 0.9326]
        *  0.1 NO_REAL_NAME From: does not include a real name
        *  0.0 MAILPHISH4 Sent by a (cracked?) webmail system
        *  0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
        *  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail
        *      provider
        *      [sisatmp[at]gmail.com]
        *  0.0 ENV_FROM_DIFF0 Envelope From differs from from (eg list)
        * -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
        *  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
        * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
        * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_EF Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
        *      envelope-from domain
        * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
        *      author's domain
        *  0.1 CK_KARD_SIZE short, card virus size - avoid matches in long
        *      text
        *  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily
        *       valid
        * -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2)
        *      [redacted listed in wl.mailspike.net]
        * -0.1 AM_TRUNCATED Compensate on large message for misfiring rules
        *  0.1 TO_NOREAL no real name(s), maybe not list
        *  0.1 ENV_FROM_DIFF Envelope From differs from from from (not list)
        * -0.0 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE No description available.
        *  0.5 KAM_NUMSUBJECT Subject ends in numbers excluding current years
        * -0.0 TXREP TXREP: Score normalizing based on sender's reputation
Delivered-To: [redacted]
Received: from [redacted] ([redacted] [redacted])
...snip ...
Received: from mail-vs1-f68.google.com (mail-vs1-f68.google.com [redacted])
        (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
         key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256
         client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256)
        (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1D4" (not verified))
        by [redacted] (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4MQlzv1rYSzDq5t
        for <[redacted]>; Sun, 11 Sep 2022 23:19:23 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: [redacted];
        dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20210112 header.b=IDs2IGQa;
        dkim-atps=neutral
Received: by mail-vs1-f68.google.com with SMTP id h1so7277106vsr.11
        for <[redacted]>; Sun, 11 Sep 2022 16:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20210112;
        h=to:subject:message-id:date:mime-version:from:from:to:cc:subject
         :date;
        bh=7r7O91+Tu66gxS7R1zL3VS89K0V+gnh8iUvczG9mKA4=;
        b=IDs2IGQaYeircz9Oiq1SsIB1Fa027e5Cfj5U3vkk6eeB9Aonk6rba9cn3m/EpZ3mwx
         Acv391MDG5tG30BJ7sUi72cBA/KL5C/A7+z8urdKXoofuNQhnO3AF1iNeB7Eouhcfk+l
         cWToQrH/rb4p1VKBvdA2tpF1FjAE/DnyPWr7ZlKlmrTMEA7SGwbE2USQVhlX3gMZgFZL
         hklzYtjr+PD3087A3Wv/VszFYug437ynWTu0r2ckopbc3WApJ+q0xFQRqnKVBHOHxRww
         WC9KRMQD5fj2gHyARae2xX5J4d/AC7Z75QjnUjis+Uqnu0aMTvTdRWSHlFdxwAmY5kTK
         baMw==
...snip...
X-Received: by 2002:a67:ff82:0:b0:398:95a9:f31c with SMTP id
 v2-20020a67ff82000000b0039895a9f31cmr85739vsq.9.1662938362037; Sun, 11 Sep
 2022 16:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 281448027559 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with
 HTTPREST; Sun, 11 Sep 2022 19:19:21 -0400
From: sisatmp+9twk5@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2022 19:19:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGWC1s4wDqyf4C959b_uxA3QNHj6JGrteJONW9YrrdeL8EqLpg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: test 2
To: [redacted]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005a4bb105e86f028d"

--0000000000005a4bb105e86f028d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Mailnator test 2.

--0000000000005a4bb105e86f028d
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"

<p>Mailnator test 2.</p>

--0000000000005a4bb105e86f028d--

I would hardly suggest this is good but it's okay. It's usable from Tor ("Safer" settings) and it has basic mail security. But it fails to hide the fact that it's a burner or disposable mail. I would rather not recommend Yet Another Burner Mail when the guide already has this covered using a personal Gmail to use in some cases where you need a "real identity" such as a bank account. This allows you to forward all mails to a more anonymous address at a trusted provider, while deleting the message from the original recipient's (Gmail) servers.

[ghost]

No, this can hide that it's a disposable email if you use a gmail.com domain, not one of their domains. I've signed up on many sites that try to harvest your personal info (Facebook, Discord, Twitter, etc.) with this service and never once have they realized it's a burner email.

[ghost]

I'll have a look at it as well, generally speaking, we recommend using complete e-mails rather than disposable fronts.

[nopeitsnothing]

No, this can hide that it's a disposable email if you use a gmail.com domain, not one of their domains. I've signed up on many sites that try to harvest your personal info (Facebook, Discord, Twitter, etc.) with this service and never once have they realized it's a burner email.

The headers show that it's coming from Gmail but it's still flagged as potential spam because of the origin. That could be a useful mailer but I wouldn't count on it to be that reliable.

[ghost]

Is this better than simplelogin or anonaddy in any way?

[nopeitsnothing]

Is this better than simplelogin or anonaddy in any way?

No, as I said above it is flagged as spam and it's just a temporary mail. Nothing even close to Anon Addy or Simple Login's extensive features.

[ghost]

Worth listing because gmail is kinda cool if it works?

[nopeitsnothing]

It's good for a disposable but not anything like a forwarding service offers. It's fine probably.

[ghost]

Isn't there some github somewhere listing all those to not make us start listing those? There are so many?

[nopeitsnothing]

Isn't there some github somewhere listing all those to not make us start listing those? There are so many?

Yes, there are many places to list good, temporary or semi-temporary e-mail services. We don't need to have another list to maintain. That's why I mentioned "reinventing the wheel."

[nopeitsnothing]

@hKQwHW Please DM on Matrix if you are looking for a reputable e-mail provider suggestion.

[ghost]

I'll just say to stick "as basis" with the two good reputable ones we already recommend/use and tested (simplelogin , anonaddy) which seems to be same recommendation on many various privacy focused websites. So, unless a new one pops up .... I'm inclined to just close this while saying these do not bring you anonymity but can be convenient later for hiding an already established anonymous e-mail. Same as a VPN, those cannot the base for anonymity.

Also

They block Tor so ... that alone is reason for not mentioning them.

Suggest "closure as not planned" a label change to "wontfix"

[nopeitsnothing]

I'll just say to stick "as basis" with the two good reputable ones we already recommend/use and tested (simplelogin , anonaddy) which seems to be same recommendation on many various privacy focused websites. So, unless a new one pops up .... I'm inclined to just close this while saying these do not bring you anonymity but can be convenient later for hiding an already established anonymous e-mail. Same as a VPN, those cannot the base for anonymity.

Also

They block Tor so ... that alone is reason for not mentioning them.

Suggest "closure as not planned" a label change to "wontfix"

Sure, closing as wontfix, but I want to ntoe that this was a good suggestion. We just don't want to have another list like in the past that needed to be constantly updated. That's not what we're trying to be.