41–50 of 129 posts
Now if only websites will stop rejecting plus-addressed email addresses as invalid. The most frequent offenders are mom & pop websites that you just _know_ are going to get breached.
You can also use this with a "." (email.spam@gmail.com) in Gmail.
bar.foo@gmail.com
gets rejected as email address doesn't exist when my gmail is bar@gmail.com
FastMail had some of the cleverest ideas for plus addressing. username+tag@fastmail.fm could be given away as tag@username.fastmail.fm
Nowadays I just use tag@mydomain when I interact with websites.
If the website is breached, the login isn’t a login for any other website, and advertisers have a harder time correlating your identity, and if you get spam you know who is the culprit, and you can stop the spam by deleting the alias.
With this, no need for any other antispam logic. Back to the mid 90s (which is a good thing as far as email traffic is concerned!).
It reminds me a gag from the last season of What we do in the shadow. A character puts a toothpick on his lip and suddenly none of the other characters recognise him. Like if spammers and hackers were not aware of the + notation, and like if it wasn’t trivial to extract the underlying email address by removing anything after the +... Unless you have an alias that completely obfuscate the underlying email, I just don’…
We would create different users for different roles. I would love to be able to use one email address distinguished with a tag.
They should just fix searching in Outlook web instead.
Finally. This has only been allowed since RFC 822 (1982). Is there any reason why Microsoft did not support this from the beginning (of Exchange)?
I have added this capability to every commercial web property I've worked on.
I understand the appeal of this feature for sorting, but it seems ineffective for things like "figure out who sold my email to the spammers" because everyone knows about it and it's elementary to just trim off everything after the plus sign. Unless you do some kind of verification and filter email sent to addresses without a valid suffix?
Since I have my own domain, I receive all emails addressed at whatever@domain.com. Of course, different values of "whatever" end up in different directories, and should one of those display an insufficient SNR, it would go straight to /dev/null. This way the "proper" address, i.e., the one that goes to the actual inbox, is not easy to extract. The hard part is social acceptance. This morning the Whirpool technician w…
Personally, i've just replaced the recipient_delimiter default value(+) with "." as that is basically impossible to strip out. Ex, firstname.COMPANY@example.net
I do get a lot of weird looks when handing the addresses out in person, but a quick explanation usually works. I just tell them, that if I start receiving spam from one one the addresses, I can just block it and be done with it. They sometimes counter with "but we won't spam you" and I acknowledge that with "but not everyone is so nice as you" or something like that.
ps: you can use multiple delimiters, so grouping is possible with firstname.bills.COMPANY@example.net
I created a new account without it, but I could not bring over my past reviews.
Now if only websites will stop rejecting plus-addressed email addresses as invalid. The most frequent offenders are mom & pop websites that you just _know_ are going to get breached.
You can also use this with a "." (email.spam@gmail.com) in Gmail.
johndoe@gmail.com
john.doe@gmail.com
j.o.h.n.d.o.e@gmail.com
johndoe+spam@gmail.com
john....doe+spam@gmail.com