Hello @Andre, are there already news from your meeting with your CTO?
We need this for Sitejet to work and not become outdated software.
Hello everyone,
Thank you for your feedback on this topic.
The new regulations are primarily aimed at users who send around 5,000 emails per day to an email provider. Currently, for security reasons, we have a limit of daily emails that can be sent via an email address hosted on our servers, so it would not be possible to send that many emails in the first place.
For this reason, and also because specialized email marketing tools are designed and technically equipped to manage and send these volumes of emails per day, we strongly recommend using these providers to send a large number of emails frequently.
DKIM is therefore not a focus topic for us at the moment. Thank you for your understanding.
1 Like
Hi @Franzi_Sitejet_Team ,
I understand the 5k limits for email marketing; our requirements are not for email marketing.
I shared the news to state that this is going to be a common security requirement.
Experience tells us that when Google creates these shifts, everyone follows (like SSL & SPF becoming a common requirement).
More importantly, DKIM stops spammers from impersonating our clients, and, I think, lands emails in the inbox (not spam).
That is the core reason I and possibly others have been asking for this for 3 years now.
As I understand, Sitejet only provides SPF for now.
Link here if it helps.
This is one of the two core reasons I’m yet to move all my business to Sitejet.
The other core reason is because of the lack of progress on www here.
It almost appears as if Sitejet don’t want client websites to succeed - because their chances of email & SEO success are hampered by the lack of development on these fronts.
1 Like
Hello @Naz_Haque - so far there is no indication that this (DKIM) will be a common security requirement for the normal use of mail. If this will be the case for the biggest mail providers, we will discuss it again of course.
More importantly, DKIM stops spammers from impersonating our clients, and, I think, lands emails in the inbox (not spam).
Right now, setting up the mails correctly, which includes a proper SPF record, avoids that. The link you are referring to actually states exactly what I mean.
If this is holding you back to move over completely, there is the possibility for you to use Sitejet with the Plesk environment, for example. Also, using an external mail service could also be an option.
It almost appears as if Sitejet don’t want client websites to succeed - because their chances of email & SEO success are hampered by the lack of development on these fronts.
Unfortunately, I do not understand the point you are making here.
Just to round this up again: The “non www” topic has been discussed, and there is no indication that our set-up is in any way hampering the success of your website.
Just to make this clear again: We are closely monitoring the developments on the market regarding the most important topics that are also mentioned here in the community. And we will make sure that the necessary changes will be discussed if they need to be realized.
Can you please look into this. I am not sure if this is only a US thing, but we are completely down. All third party requires this now.
Our users can not even sign in via Imap or pop3 anymore. Its all down becuase they all are saying we are not sucre.
Please open either a new thread for this issue or send us a proper ticket request since this is an issue that might include sensitive information. The email should include 2-3 website IDs and email addresses where this is happening.
We would also need information about which tools and OS they are using, any error messages and screenshots of the settings of course.
The issue you are mentioning probably has nothing to do with DMARC per se if you are referring to signing in and something “being down”.
One more vote for implementing DKIM. I just set up a new website and email and my test message to my Gmail account was rejected for no DKIM.
With Gmail and others getting stricter on requiring SPF and DKIM this would seem to be a major need for Sitejet users.
Would implementing DKIM capability in Sitejet be a major project requiring a large amount of resources? Or is there some other strategic reason for not doing it?
Is the intent to make Sitejet less attractive to use for email and shift users email activity to some external provider for some reason?
I’m just trying to understand the logic behind the multi-year decisions to not pursue DKIM in Sitejet.
Especially now when Gmail is requiring it – Gmail has over 30% of global email market share and over 50% market share in the US. Not allowing compliance with their standard seems strange from a business perspective.
1 Like
Hello Tom, do you like to send us a ticket with the error message and your SPF record plus the website ID? This might be related to this:
…and not DKIM.
I like to answer a few of the questions you raised:
Would implementing DKIM capability in Sitejet be a major project requiring a large amount of resources?
Yes. And with the integration to Plesk for example you are able to use Sitejet and set up your own mail server as well.
Is the intent to make Sitejet less attractive to use for email and shift users email activity to some external provider for some reason?
No, there is no intent and the current settings already discussed in this article are fulfilling the basic needs.
I’m just trying to understand the logic behind the multi-year decisions to not pursue DKIM in Sitejet. Especially now when Gmail is requiring it – Gmail has over 30% of global email market share and over 50% market share in the US. Not allowing compliance with their standard seems strange from a business perspective.
I like to point to the other information we have posted here and the thread I linked above that should make it more clear that right now this is not needed for the basic email features.
Hope this helps.
Hi @Andre,
The context of my statement for website success is specifically for migrations. SEO losses occur if we migrate websites that do not use www to Sitejet, as they will be forced to use www,
Newer websites primarily do not use the www subdomain.
As evidenced by the parent of Sitejet company: https://webpros.com/ (no www)
And Sitejet’s newer competitors, such as Webflow.
So, if https://webpros.com/ were to migrate to sitejet, they’d have to change their URL structure to https://www.webpros.com/ and apply 301s to all the URLs. They’d then lose the full strength of their backlinks at this moment as they all point to a non-www URL. Examples provided.
I explained this issue with supporting links here.
I provided evidence as to why using 301s is not an appropriate solution, as it doesn’t pass over all the SEO equity here.
I provided all these 3rd party references and clarification a year ago, and there’s been no change or updates on the non-www matter; that is why I’ve commented.
Commercially, Sitejet is removing itself from consideration for anyone with a non-www website looking for a CMS. How that revenue threat to Sitejet isn’t being addressed is baffling!!
When users have taken the time to give supporting evidence for numerous years with no changes or updates, we can’t help but wonder if Sitejet is making decisions to reduce its resources, which makes it less attractive.
I’m not the only one wondering this, as seen in the question from @Tom_Auterman.
@Andre, my frustrations are not with you, but at Sitejet, you’ve always been helpful and responsive. Thanks for your replies and efforts. Please keep pushing leadership to make the non-WWW and DKIM happen.
As an investor in multiple companies, I know that often, the communities’ wishlists do not line up with the company vision and commercial runways. Moreover, they ask for frivolous things, which neither create revenue opportunities nor remove revenue threats.
Non WWW, isn’t a frivolous request.
Have you had the chance to try Sitejet with Plesk for example? @Naz_Haque - I reckon the immediate changes you like and need can be covered there?