Comments on Review of Email privacy with a thick German accent

Be civil and read the entire article first. This is not a support forum. Comments from new contributors are moderated. English only.

Leave a comment

Required. Optional. E.g. your homepage, Twitter. or Email required unless anonymous. Not published or shared. Reuse to be recognized as the same commenter.
Plain-text only. Begin lines with a > character to quote.


Thanks for posting such a detailed review!

Really disappointing to read the web interface isn't great and the issues with setting up the spam filters. Shared DKIM isn't ideal either.

Have you experienced any issues with your emails being marked as spam?

I've not experienced that the emails I send end up as spam, but then again: I wouldn't really know. Maybe that's the reason people don't always reply to emails?

False-positives with incoming emails isn't a big problem. Maybe one day two out of a hundred. So, about the same as any other service.

The web interface isn't a big issue if you intend to use an email client anyway.

Faheem Mitha

Hi Daniel,

Thank you for the detailed and informative review.

The link you posted


says (I quote):

> DKIM key management: In our latest development, we have turned the DKIM key management system for custom domain names on its head. The idea is that it shouldn't be the user who uploads DKIM keys to our system, as this is prone to errors. Wouldn't it be much better and safer if the system generated individual DKIM keys for each domain and then offered a download link for the key?

If I understand correctly, this capability still doesn't exist. Though I don't know when this web page was written. It is not dated.

My understanding is that has the same DKIM keys for all custom domains. Which certainly isn't a good idea. I would have assumed that would generate individual DKIM keys for every distinct custom domain as the above quote says, and have the user record that in the DNS record for that domain. That seems like the obvious way to do this. And it seems rather odd that it isn't been done for such a technically minded service.

Regards, Faheem

Faheem Mitha

Hi Daniel,

For the record, the section entitled "Message identified as spam still delivered to my inbox" is incorrect. As of right now, April 2023, spam is correctly redirected to the folder I have designated, namely TRASH. SPAM is not available as an option. See my bug report below.

I tested this by setting

Settings -> -> E-mail -> Settings spamprotection -> Spam e-mails -> Flag & Redirect to [TRASH]

I wasn't able to set this to SPAM, because SPAM wasn't given as an

option, even though there is a folder with that name. (I submitted a bug report about this, but the person who responded didn't seem


I then set my current email hosting service to forward a copy to my account. My current email gets lots of spam, so that was a reasonable way to test how did with to spam filtering.

As it turns out, does a good but not perfect job of filtering out spam, certainly much better than my current provider This probably has something to do with the fact that emails processed by often have the following header in them, amazingly.

X-Lux-State: Email message > 200KB in size. Basic anti-Spam filtering skipped.

Which basically is a guaranteed way for plenty of spam to arrive in my mailbox. It's worth noting that they recently increased their monthly rates from USD 10 to USD 15, and then to USD 20. At this point, I'm wondering why anyone even uses them.

Anyway, here is the bug report I wrote to

Under → Email → Settings spamprotection

the option is given to “Flag and Redirect“ “Spam e-mails“ to

one of Drafts, INBOX, Junk, Sent, Trash.

This option does not appear to be user customizable.

But the actual mailbox has the following.

Inbox, Unread, Drafts, Sent, Spam, Trash.

There is no “Junk“ folder.

More importantly, there is no option to redirect to “Spam”,

which is the most natural mailbox to redirect spam to.

I’m also not sure why both a “Spam“ and a “Trash“ folder are

required. Isn’t that redundant?

And here is their response.

Thank you very much for your message and your patience. I'm

sorry for the delayed response, we have a lot of user

inquiries right now, so it took some time. As to your

questions, your are absolutely correct, this really seems

redundant. Unfortunately this is the way the program running

in the backend has named the SPAM folder. The JUNK-folder is

the SPAM-folder. I hope this will be changed in the future,

because it can cause quite the confusion. I hope this answers

your questions. If you have any further questions, please get

in touch with us. Have a great day!

Quite disappointing. They don't seem to be interested in fixing this. I won't bother to include my reply to this.