Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you visited gail.co?
Only if the parent doesn't know about Ctrl+Enter and still waste time trying to type ".com"
What is this shortcut you speak of? And in which browsers is it useful?
Gail, not Gmail
141–150 of 166 posts
Re: Gail, not Gmail
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's nothing wrong with receiving emails. I don't think it's actually illegal to do that. Just a bit morally off.
Just receiving e-mails would hardly be a way to "monetize it by phishing".
You could probably just redirect all emails to @gmail.com, and most users would be none the wiser. Then you'd be able to trivially do password resets on any accounts that were created with the typo domain.
Re: Gail, not Gmail
#143I would be tempted to implement a custom SMTP server that accepts every email as if that target mailbox exists and collect them on a nosql db (just for curiosity and technical challenge) though I have no idea if I'd face any legal issues.
It's called Catch-All; I have it set up for my Google For Work account (e.g. I have a gmail that receives @my domain). So, you could use gmail to catch all e-mails to @gail.com; no need for a 'custom SMTP server'.
I wanted this and I couldn't find it, thanks!
How much spam do you get from the Catch-All?
Re: Gail, not Gmail
#144The husband in question is a very accomplished engineer and owns his own first name as a domain too :-) https://kevin.org/ - not dot com sadly!
Re: Gail, not Gmail
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes agreed, I didn't think about email aspect
DNS exists for more than just http and email too. I reckon you should learn more about how the technology works before telling other people how to run their lives and dispose of their private property. Or maybe... Just don't do those things at all.
I'm the CTO for a top 100 alexa site. I know how DNS works lol. I just didn't see that part of the site that explained that the content was hidden.
Re: Gail, not Gmail
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse.
Right... And your point is? What law would this break? Or are you ignorant of that as well? If so, why even bother replying?
I think he means that "why would you?" is not good legal advice.
I mean, I agree with you in principle, but I can imagine some backwater judge deciding that Alice Techie was violating the privacy of Bob D. Luddite by accepting emails addressed to bob.d.luddite@alicetechie.com.
Re: Gail, not Gmail
#147The FAQ links to an account of an attempted takeover of the domain that I found fascinating to read: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006... Some interesting excerpts: > vii) it is unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trademark considering the fame and tradition of the trademark GAIL I have personally never heard of GAIL and found it funny that this was part of the com…
It is weird how DNS names can be legally reassigned. It's like being forced to move to a different street or something. Or to give up a neat phone number because another company has the same phoneword.
How else would you deal with cybersquatters?
Re: Gail, not Gmail
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right... And your point is? What law would this break? Or are you ignorant of that as well? If so, why even bother replying?
I think he means that "why would you?" is not good legal advice. I mean, I agree with you in principle, but I can imagine some backwater judge deciding that Alice Techie was violating the privacy of Bob D. Luddite by accepting emails addressed to bob.d.luddite@alicetechie.com.
> I think he means that "why would you?" is not good legal advice.
It is when it is literally common practice. Similar to if someone were to ask if they'd get in legal trouble for breathing. Why would you?
Re: Gail, not Gmail
#149Somewhat related: http://www.purple.com
I personally like http://heeeeeeeey.com/
Re: Gail, not Gmail
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
In most of the world, account numbers aren't at all sensitive, so I'm not sure what would be gained.
It's not the content of the message. Typically inside a company (like a bank ) there's an email client with a preconfigured contacts list linked to an AD server, the email client will write the email address for you. So the probability of someone mistyping an email address inside the same company is, I'd say, low. Even lower if it's a recuring contact between two persons who know each others. That's what's smelling h…
It wasn't an internal email, it was from someone at some private investment fund, and emailed to someone at the bank.
Also, for clarification, 12345678 wasn't the actual number, it was something that looked completely legit.