Also, having such a critical part of your system depend on email delivery and access? Looking at most frontend development practices I understand the blindside/YOLO attitude these days but it's still a bad idea anytime of the day.
Ask HN: Why aren't one-time sign in links more popular for authentication?
81–90 of 198 posts
Re: Ask HN: Why aren't one-time sign in links more popular for authentication?
#82We have tried this for a while and the following reasons made us kill it: 1. Email delivery latency: depending on the service you use, the time it takes to deliver emails to the user can vary. Worst case I encountered was up to 20 minutes delay when there were issues with Mailgun. 2. Usability: you have to leave your current app and switch to your mail client. You may be on a device where you don't have a mail client…
4. Some email clients still break links in emails
5. Proper links require HTML; otherwise you rely on the email client recognizing a URL as such (which brings us back to 4).
6. The email might mistakenly get recognized as spam.
Re: Ask HN: Why aren't one-time sign in links more popular for authentication?
#83We have tried this for a while and the following reasons made us kill it: 1. Email delivery latency: depending on the service you use, the time it takes to deliver emails to the user can vary. Worst case I encountered was up to 20 minutes delay when there were issues with Mailgun. 2. Usability: you have to leave your current app and switch to your mail client. You may be on a device where you don't have a mail client…
This is particularly true when the recipient has enabled Greylisting[0] and delivery has to be attempted multiple times (which is perfectly fine from the point of view of the RFC standards). In view of this, email delivery rather resembles real-world postal package delivery (and not so much the instantaneous delivery of, say, phone calls).
Re: Ask HN: Why aren't one-time sign in links more popular for authentication?
#84Re: Ask HN: Why aren't one-time sign in links more popular for authentication?
#85We have tried this for a while and the following reasons made us kill it: 1. Email delivery latency: depending on the service you use, the time it takes to deliver emails to the user can vary. Worst case I encountered was up to 20 minutes delay when there were issues with Mailgun. 2. Usability: you have to leave your current app and switch to your mail client. You may be on a device where you don't have a mail client…
>sign up/sign in Why were clear terms like login/register/logout replaced with a “sign ...”? I get confused twice a week by these, especially because the difference between “in” and “up” is so subtle (and overloaded, like “sign up for a meeting at friday”, unrelated to registration routine). Sorry for offtopic, but it is really annoying. Is it more linguistically correct or just a hipster thing?
Re: Ask HN: Why aren't one-time sign in links more popular for authentication?
#86We have tried this for a while and the following reasons made us kill it: 1. Email delivery latency: depending on the service you use, the time it takes to deliver emails to the user can vary. Worst case I encountered was up to 20 minutes delay when there were issues with Mailgun. 2. Usability: you have to leave your current app and switch to your mail client. You may be on a device where you don't have a mail client…
>sign up/sign in Why were clear terms like login/register/logout replaced with a “sign ...”? I get confused twice a week by these, especially because the difference between “in” and “up” is so subtle (and overloaded, like “sign up for a meeting at friday”, unrelated to registration routine). Sorry for offtopic, but it is really annoying. Is it more linguistically correct or just a hipster thing?
Re: Ask HN: Why aren't one-time sign in links more popular for authentication?
#87Re: Ask HN: Why aren't one-time sign in links more popular for authentication?
#88If your login mechanism sets a cookie after they verify the link then they can continue to be logged in for 3 months or however long you want. This is similar to what you would do with a password.
Also the site type and your audience makes a big difference. I wouldn't do it on a site where folks aren't technical.
But for example what about an ecommerce site where customers need to register an account + put in credit card details to place an order and then they get access to digital goods?
In the above case the lack of password is a benefit because it simplifies the payment form. Now they only need to put in an email address + card details.
And for getting access to what they purchased a slight delay isn't the end of the world. You could even give them access to it immediately in some type of unverified way (limited features until they verify). Also it's a slight deterrent for account sharing.
Re: Ask HN: Why aren't one-time sign in links more popular for authentication?
#89Re: Ask HN: Why aren't one-time sign in links more popular for authentication?
#90Besides what many others have said, I'll add that many low-end Android phones are likely to kill your app when the user leaves it to go check their email. Which is fine, you can handle it, but many apps add a flow like this and aren't ready to be killed in the middle of their sign-in flow because this never happens on an emulator or a high-end test device.