> engaging, interactive, and actionable
I don't want my emails to be 'engaging, interactive, and actionable', I just want them delivered with a minimum of fuss and preferably in plain text.
All this marketing bullshit is getting old.
Bringing AMP to Gmail
111–120 of 144 posts
Re: Bringing AMP to Gmail
#112[deleted]
Re: Bringing AMP to Gmail
#113I am very down on AMP. I did indeed think they would try to embrace and extend the web to be inside their own walled garden. If I was a publisher who didn't control my content or even Pinterest I would be genuinely terrified.
Re: Bringing AMP to Gmail
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
If email is so insecure, how come almost every service uses email as a recovery tool? There must be hundreds of thousands of very valuable accounts that could be accessed if you had access to someone's emails, so why doesn't that seem to happen?
You two are totally missing to use the threat model approach to security. Email is "secure enough" for common people, whose threat model isn't high. We have Google and Microsoft to thank for that primarily, since they're the ones that pushed 2-factor auth, encryption in transit (HTTPS) and other features (that later on got implemented by all the email providers). Those features themselves would mean nothing if they w…
Is email secure enough, or does Google/Microsoft running people's mail servers make it secure enough?
I think it's the latter.
Re: Bringing AMP to Gmail
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Spam put centralised commercial e-mail ( ISPs and web-mail ) into critical condition until the web-mail hosts reacted to save themselves. But as for the little folk who are less of a target: I have run my own mail server for 18 years and can't imagine I've received more than 100 spams in total. And that is without any defences other than SPF. ISP e-mail, well that is certainly spammed to death but probably for the be…
I have a personal domain on Gmail, and my spam folder currently has 105 messages in it from the past month. Two are mis-filed mass mailings and one is from a mailing list that I think I was once legitimately on, but which has refused to unsubscribe me. The rest are from russian women who thinks I'm sexy and a few from the Nigerian central bank (that's apparently still a thing, who'd have thought). These are the email…
That tells nor about the state of alleged defenders than state of email. 2009 vintage spam filter (CRM114, OSBF, extra weight on headers) is easily much more accurate in all senses than GMail alleged spam filter. The problem with GMail is it uses some generic idea of unwanted mail that never correctly applied to the mail you receive in the first place - to save space on personalised filters and speed up processing. Oh, and to extract global statistics.
Re: Bringing AMP to Gmail
#116Re: Bringing AMP to Gmail
#117With AMP for Email, Google is keeping users within Gmail when when they’re interacting with your website or service. The strategy of Google / AMP is clear: using its monopoly to convert the open web into properties of Google. AMP is as “open” as Adobe Flash (Flex, etc) is open. Sure, it may he open source, but it is encumbered by license keys (see: AMP Cache), special privileges (again see: Google search cache), and…
I wonder what this will do to third party conversion tracking. Email is a primary marketing channel for many businesses with Gmail as a primary email client of their audiences.
Re: Bringing AMP to Gmail
#118I genuinely fear the future of email. Email is still the only piece of communication you can own, from top to bottom, from running the service to owning the domain[^1] it runs on. You were able to send anyone email, regardless of rank, location, social status. Google (and recently, Outlook) is taking all of it away. It's putting mail from people not on your contact list in spam[^3]; it's by default blaclisting IPs wi…
> I genuinely fear the future of email
Email is already the worst form of communication. Spam has basically made it useless.
Re: Bringing AMP to Gmail
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
You two are totally missing to use the threat model approach to security. Email is "secure enough" for common people, whose threat model isn't high. We have Google and Microsoft to thank for that primarily, since they're the ones that pushed 2-factor auth, encryption in transit (HTTPS) and other features (that later on got implemented by all the email providers). Those features themselves would mean nothing if they w…
Is email secure enough, or does Google/Microsoft running people's mail servers make it secure enough? I think it's the latter.
I would say it's in between.
Email by itself (as a protocol) is far from perfect, but you can have other mechanisms to improve on top of it where it falls short (while some other things, like metadata retention, are deal breakers). You can still host your own email with almost all the bells and whistles offered by Google/Microsoft, so you have that going for you.
On the other hand, even if you have the greatest and most secure emailing server imaginable, you would still be communicating with others who don't use it, and you're relying on them having some strong security mechanisms as well. Therefore, it's important for Google/Microsoft to make these improvements on top of emails as well.
So, if we're talking about email as a protocol, not secure enough for 21st century.
If we're talking about email as an end product, then yes, it's secure enough (under the assumption that you're using some well known email hosting service).
Re: Bringing AMP to Gmail
#120Can you just mine my data unobtrousively instead of screwing with every service I stupidly provide my lifes details? Already migrating, not because of the obvious privacy issues, but useability. How can a company that profits by knowing what people think and talk about, see so little of the house collapsing around them? Even free isn't cheap enough, it has to work. I think I speak for a fair number of HN readers when…
> I think I speak for a fair number of HN readers when I say, Literally everything google offered 10-15 years ago was better. Talk, gmail, voice, search (with booleans!). Its all a wasteland now, begotten and forgotten for sweet advertising and big data deals.
Eh... I think you should speak for yourself and convince with arguments instead.
How are these products worse? Search gives much more relevant users, pretty much killed SEO as a thing, now using page size and performance as metrics to push mobile-friendly websites higher when you're on your mobile.
Gmail is just significantly better in every way.. including privacy: They stopped using emails for ads. [0]
Of course, RIP Google Talk, but Voice is much better now, with a VoIP option coming soon.[1]
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/.../google-will-stop-reading-your-... [1] https://9to5google.com/2017/01/26/google-voice-voip-integrat...