[erdemozg]

I would be tempted to implement a custom SMTP server that accepts every email as if that target mailbox exists and collect them on a nosql db (just for curiosity and technical challenge) though I have no idea if I'd face any legal issues.

[NKCSS]

It's called Catch-All; I have it set up for my Google For Work account (e.g. I have a gmail that receives @my domain). So, you could use gmail to catch all e-mails to @gail.com; no need for a 'custom SMTP server'.

[throwanem]

You can also do this with a real MTA; no need for Google, either.

[NKCSS]

I know; was just an example of an available 'Catch-All' solution.

Back in the day™ I wrote a C# dll to add the functionality to my Exchange server (was not an option back then; don't know if it's possible out of the box now). There are many solutions once you know what to look for (e.g. the phrase 'Catch-All')

[Cpoll]

I wanted this and I couldn't find it, thanks!

How much spam do you get from the Catch-All?

[erdemozg]

Thanks for the info. I didn't know it was that easy.

[vlucas]

I made a service that does this ( https://disposeamail.com/ ), and I am constantly asking myself if it's worth it. The PostgreSQL database takes up over half the disk space on the VPS I run it on, and that's only after a few months. And of course it's almost all ultra low quality spam.

[vocatus_gate]

You're doing the Lord's work, son.

[thinkmilitant]

This is a great service/idea. Have you considered a donate button to help support it?

[tokenizerrr]

http://www.mailinator.com/ is probably better. They have a ton of domain aliases, see their homepage.

[tokenizerrr]

> though I have no idea if I'd face any legal issues.

Why would you? It's standard practice to set up a catch-all for your domain and you can just configure postfix to do that.

[paulcole]

Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse.

[tokenizerrr]

Right... And your point is? What law would this break? Or are you ignorant of that as well? If so, why even bother replying?

[Cpoll]

I think he means that "why would you?" is not good legal advice.

I mean, I agree with you in principle, but I can imagine some backwater judge deciding that Alice Techie was violating the privacy of Bob D. Luddite by accepting emails addressed to [e-mail].

[tokenizerrr]

> I think he means that "why would you?" is not good legal advice.

It is when it is literally common practice. Similar to if someone were to ask if they'd get in legal trouble for breathing. Why would you?

[manmal]

Or just pretend that you are a gmail mail server and store the credentials that are transmitted when people add the account to their mail app.

[dbbk]

Would DMARC not prevent this?