81–90 of 129 posts
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)?
their Outlook.com has this for years, I'm surprised O365 didn't have it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not going to help, since everybody knows you can just strip everything after the '+' and get to the main mailbox.
I do prefix+12RandomLetters@blahblah and every potential sender gets it's own random address. Then I use filters to move mail to predefined folders. What's left is spam. If a mail comes in from an unknown sender to known address I know that the address is compromised. Ideally I would like to plug my password manager to generate an address and automatically add email filters in place. Although I was thinking about a s…
If you do, how well does your 12 random letter system work for that use case?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such services are likely breaking the law. Edit: Downvote me all you want, they're still breaking the law… In the US there's the CAN-SPAM act ( https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/can... ) and nearly every other country has similar laws. Most of them require one-click unsubscribes to work. It's still failure to comply even if it's due to negligence/ignorance/incompetence.
What does one-click unsubscribe have to do with accepting an email with a + in it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not going to help, since everybody knows you can just strip everything after the '+' and get to the main mailbox.
'+' has no standardized meaning. Just put the tag first and let them strip off the unimportant part.
Tired of Microsoft users subscribed to mailinglists constantly breaking threading.
FastMail had some of the cleverest ideas for plus addressing. username+tag@fastmail.fm could be given away as tag@username.fastmail.fm
It's been nearly 20 years since I added that feature. I assumed at the time everyone would do it when they saw how handy it is. For some reason that didn't happen...
and then spent a lot of time changing my email address in accounts that I've had a really long time.
Shocked at how badly that went, actually. For certain service providers, I couldn't change my email address and was encouraged to open a new account, which would've meant losing certain records in the old accounts. I couldn't consolidate.
And companies that have different email addresses for their accounts and their mailing lists -- not helpful.
And finally, companies that disable the "update your email address" link in footer of popular email list services, so your only option is to unsubscribe -- good going (not).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would agree with this technique, but it’s not possible due to the high number of services that don’t permit “+” in the email address or break because they don’t URI encode it. I have several services I will never be able to unsubscribe from because of the latter—and yes, I tried manually URI encoding it and changing the form fields with dev tools.
Such services are likely breaking the law. Edit: Downvote me all you want, they're still breaking the law… In the US there's the CAN-SPAM act ( https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/can... ) and nearly every other country has similar laws. Most of them require one-click unsubscribes to work. It's still failure to comply even if it's due to negligence/ignorance/incompetence.
'+' has no special meaning. The relevant standards only say that senders can't dictate how a system encodes its addresses. No law is in place to compel that behavior. If that were the case I'd love to force ISPs supposedly selling IP services to allow unencumbered use of port 25, residential servers, and transport protocols other than TCP and UDP.
They had to. This was the only reason why people would refuse to migrate from GSuite to Office365.