Of course it will, - at least, it better - but what if it doesn't? And if it does, are you going to take countermeasures in case it happens again or is it just going to be 'back to normal' again?
Sure you can argue "move to Fastmail/Protonmail/Hey/whatever", but those can also go down on you just like Google is down now. And self hosting email is apparently not a thing due to complexity and having to forever fight with being marked as spam (ndr.: not my personal experience, I never tried self hosting, just relying what I read here on HN when the topic comes up).
So, yeah, what do we do about email? I feel like we should have a solution to this by now, but somehow we don't.
That's _much_ better than trying to host my own email server.
[0] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/office365/servicedescriptio...
1- https://github.com/awesome-selfhosted/awesome-selfhosted#ema...
As I said (literally in the second sentence), I don't rely on Google for everything, as you mention. I don't actually rely on Google for anything other than gmail, and of that I am also unhappy. The point I was trying to make is that there aren't really alternatives, and I was hoping someone might come out with a suggestion about how to overcome that problem.
You can still use Gmail and fall back to connecting directly to your server if Gmail is down.
Some mails might be flagged as spam if the IP/domain has no reputation, but that quickly passes, at least that's my experience.
Nice and simple! :D
I haven't had any issues with new domains being marked as spam, but I always make sure the SPF, DKIM and DMARC records are set up.
I highly suggest everyone disable this setting on their own, but also on their (perhaps less technical) friends' and relatives' devices. Otherwise, if anything happens to your account or - less likely - the storage provider or their hardware, your data could very well be gone forever. I can't believe anyone would want that.
Everybody uses it, so if, like, Gmail loses all the emails, we are then in such a state that the consequences will be more bearable and socially normal.
Most people are fine with accepting that whatever future thing will happen to most people will also happen to them. Because then the consequences will also be normal.
If the apocalypse comes, it comes for almost all of us and that's consolation enough.
There was actually a project called “spinnaker” that was supposed to solve this problem.
Whether the cost of paying 2 or more cloud providers is worth it for most companies is up in the air.
https://aws.amazon.com/hybrid https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/azure-arc https://cloud.google.com/anthos
Full disclosure: I work for Azure. Don't work on Arc tho. Don't have experience being a customer for these products
Most of the things I backed up with google remain largely accessible, except for an occasion like this.
It's rare that any services I operate solo come back this quickly after there is a downing issue.
Cloud storage is still useful of course, but I prefer to view it as a cache rather than as a dependable backup.
Much less chance of that happening than my local backups getting borked...
They seemed to have figured out the hard parts already.
For me, backing up to the Cloud is fine, because I find the risk of my home being broken into and everything stolen AND the cloud goes down AND the cloud services are completely unrecoverable is a small enough risk to tolerate.
I don't think it's possible to have permanently indestructible files in existence over a given time period.
Both have vastly different failure modes and typical backup should use both of them.
This way if all my backups are gone I likely have way more important issues that loss of files.
(and yes, my backups are encrypted)
If the question is "anybody still feel like arguing that 'a single provider' is a viable back-up" then it's yes for most cases. A better strategy is of course to use multiple providers. The chances that it never comes back again is much lower.
Same question for non-cloud.
