I just checked. At least it's not answering on 25 to receive all that free typo mail. Same for gmali.com. But they could spoof the gmail login page. Not finding out.
PORT STATE SERVICE
80/tcp open http
443/tcp open https
8080/tcp open http-proxy
You're looking in the wrong place. They don't need to be listening for mail on the machine behind the A/AAAA records for the domain, because they have an MX record indicating that mail should be delivered elsewhere:
$ dig MX gmai.com +short
1 mail.h-email.net.
Port 25 is very rare these days, as it implies the possibility of unencrypted traffic; legitimate SMTP traffic uses port 587. That said, I checked a couple of the hosts that that name resolves to, and they all listen for both SMTP and secure SMTP traffic:
$ nmap -p 25,587 mail.h-email.net
Starting Nmap 7.95 ( https://nmap.org ) at 2025-12-18 16:31 UTC
Nmap scan report for mail.h-email.net (165.227.159.144)
Host is up (0.093s latency).
Other addresses for mail.h-email.net (not scanned): 91.107.214.206 165.227.156.49 167.235.143.33 5.75.171.74 5.161.194.135 178.62.199.248 5.161.98.212 162.55.164.116 49.13.4.90
rDNS record for 165.227.159.144: mail2.h-email.net
PORT STATE SERVICE
25/tcp open smtp
587/tcp open submission
As far as I've been able to research, these typesquatting domain traps started at the same time as Spamhaus CSS blacklist which was actually a company called Deteque.
If the MX has a large number of Hetzner IPs as mailservers, then it's probably Spamhaus.
Similar, but I think it might actually be dumber. When you take a deep dive you're jumping headfirst into things you don't understand, with the outcome largely unknown to you. When you double down on something you're already aware that it isn't working, but you persist anyway under the delusion that doing the same thing more aggressively will make your bad plan succeed.
That's a good point. Private Equity is a fairly broad umbrella term that encompasses a variety of investment strategies and business models.
The type of Private Equity that most here are referring to is the type that buys up existing businesses, squeezes as much money as possible out of them, and throws their desecrated corpses in the gutter. These "investors" are a blight on society, this activity should be criminalized, they should be in prison.
But there are a lot of well-meaning investors who do great things for society that also get stuck with the same label.
Just like crows! People hate crows even though they play a valuable role in ecosystems.
I would argue that moribund businesses who maintain a competitive moat but are otherwise extremely unproductive and inefficient are the real blight on society. If PE firms can liquidate those businesses and open up the market while freeing up capital for more productive investment then I fully support them.
I would love to hear some counterexamples though. Productive and innovative businesses with really solid fundamentals (balance sheets) that were acquired and dismantled by PE.
> Productive and innovative businesses with really solid fundamentals (balance sheets) that were acquired and dismantled by PE.
You have way too much (unneeded) limiting qualifications. In Netherlands PE have bought loads of companies, then put the acquisition price as a loan on the balance sheet. Plus then sold the assets, made the company then lease those assets. Then those companies often went bankrupt as the leasing prices increased crazily.
> I would argue that moribund businesses who maintain a competitive moat but are otherwise extremely unproductive and inefficient are the real blight on society.
The companies I've cited weren't "extremely unproductive and inefficient". Businesses can be profitable and healthy without all the qualifications you think they need.
Weren't they losing money for years on all-you-can-eat seafood specials [1]?
It's not uncommon in the fast food business to be breaking even or losing money on all aspects of the business while the true value of the company, its real estate portfolio, steadily grows. The fact that investors decided they wanted to cash out should be a surprise to no one.
> The type of Private Equity that most here are referring to is the type that buys up existing businesses, squeezes as much money as possible out of them, and throws their desecrated corpses in the gutter.
And this type of PE represents a very small minority of what is actually considered "Private Equity". The vast majority of PE deals are about growth. This small minority of asset stripping PE groups gets the most headlines though.
> I don't understand that. 98% of devices over 15 years old have either died of old age or are completely obsolete. Something can be said about unlocking deprecated devices, but it would only ever be used by a tiny percentage of people. Apple devices in particular last a very long time anyway, as you should expect from a premium brand.
