Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mozilla's Firefox Relay to be added to disposable-email-domains blacklist

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 304 posts

Re: Mozilla's Firefox Relay to be added to disposable-email-domains blacklist

#171

Post by olliej »

Karunamon wrote: post #49
teakettle42 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people use disposable email addresses all the time to avoid paying for our product. From the prospective subscriber’s perspective, that’s your problem to worry about — not theirs. > We don’t sell any data. How should users know that? It’s also not just a matter of selling data — almost all companies will spam your email address, even if you check the box asking them not to.

> almost all companies will spam your email address, even if you check the box asking them not to. I find this very hard to believe. "Spam" has a specific definition; the most important bit of which is that it is unsolicited. Mails landing in your inbox that you'd rather not get, but which are not unsolicited (say, by you signing up for an account and confirming your address), are not spam by definition . "Almost all…

Behold the dictionary definitions:

Merriam-webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spam)

"e-mail that is not wanted"

Oxford (via google https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=oxford+...)

"irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the internet to a large number of recipients."

Neither is your absurd definition.

And to be clear, entering a business agreement for a product or service you sell, is not me soliciting anything other than that product. Marketing emails, "product updates", etc are not the product or service I am paying for.

Re: Mozilla's Firefox Relay to be added to disposable-email-domains blacklist

#172

Post by teakettle42 »

Karunamon wrote: post #160
Nextgrid wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're accepting that for every company you sign up for you should expect at least one spam that requires time & attention to deal with (some may require login, etc)? Fair enough but I disagree that this is something we should all be accepting just for the benefit of a minority that happens to work in marketing. > of those kinds of emails [emphasis mine] Also keep in mind that scummy companies have caught on to th…

What I "accept" is that getting an email I'd rather not have gotten is not a day-ruining event worth rudely snarking at strangers on the internet for, and the level of entitled rage and piling on generated in response to a calmly stated ask (let's save 'spam' for things that actually meet an objective, commonly-accepted standard used by most groups that actually try to stop it) is ridiculous.

> let's save 'spam' for things that actually meet an objective, commonly-accepted standard used by most groups that actually try to stop it

Your definition is based on what’s legal under the “established business relationship” exemption in the CAN-SPAM act, not any “commonly-accepted objective standard” of what spam is.

Re: Mozilla's Firefox Relay to be added to disposable-email-domains blacklist

#173

Post by lategloriousgnu »

artdigital wrote: post #165
lategloriousgnu wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference with Apple's hide my address feature, is that it will only give you one per site. So even though it's an address generated specifically for that website, it's still your "primary" email for that domain. If you signup for Netflix using the feature, you can't cancel your account and then signup with a new Apple email, it will only allow you to login with your original one. This negates the primary reason…

> If you signup for Netflix using the feature, you can't cancel your account and then signup with a new Apple email, it will only allow you to login with your original one. You absolutely can. You can generate as many as you want, whenever you want

Ah, on further reading it looks like there are a couple parts to it.

I have only used the "Sign in with Apple" feature directly in apps, which only ever lets you create one for that app.

However, apparently with an iCloud+ subscription, you can generate arbitrary email addresses from within iCloud itself, and then use those wherever you like.

https://support.apple.com/en-au/HT210425

Re: Mozilla's Firefox Relay to be added to disposable-email-domains blacklist

#174

Post by m-p-3 »

gnomewascool wrote: post #48
EGreg wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think as long as it's just INCOMING email, what's the harm in it?

Isn't Firefox Relay the same, though — you can receive e-mails, but not send unsolicited mail?

You can reply, at least I can with my premium subscription.

Re: Mozilla's Firefox Relay to be added to disposable-email-domains blacklist

#175

Post by Spivak »

sahkopoyta wrote: post #157
Spivak wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We did, it's called non-disposable email. A non-unique pseudoanonymous identity that's somewhat difficult to mint in bulk. If you don't like "accounts of well-known service providers" -- email or login-with-whoever then sources of identity that "everyone" has that are hard to get many of are government ids, phone numbers and credit cards. Like what else is there? For super technical people we could do something like…

I don't really get this. Where do you draw the line between disposable and non-disposable email? What prevents anyone from creating @gmail.com addresses?

Nothing, but if you try to create 1000 of such emails you’ll get banned by Google.

Re: Mozilla's Firefox Relay to be added to disposable-email-domains blacklist

#176

Post by m-p-3 »

bastawhiz wrote: post #68
donkarma wrote: post #2

if you're having issues with disposable emails, you need to either add phone verification or make it so people can try your service (or view prices!) without signing up

If you're masking your email because of privacy concerns, are you really going to be happy to go through phone verification?

I have a VoIP number that I ported from an actual cellphone carrier, so that it isn't normally flagged as part of a VoIP phone number range.

At least I can turn it "off" when I don't expect a phone call or text message.

Re: Mozilla's Firefox Relay to be added to disposable-email-domains blacklist

#178

Post by rubyfan »

AequitasOmnibus wrote: post #10

The reason disposable email addresses exist and are popular is because services have abused users' trust to not use these emails for shady ad revenue and marketing schemes. It's further compounded by shoddy security that leads to leaks and exposure of people's personal email addresses to pwned compromised lists. People don't want to give up their personal email addresses so that they can be spammed or hacked. Until s…

I recently found a burner phone number relay service for this reason. Anyone that wants your personal info is almost always user hostile.

Re: Mozilla's Firefox Relay to be added to disposable-email-domains blacklist

#179

Post by sahkopoyta »

lategloriousgnu wrote: post #162
sahkopoyta wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really get this. Where do you draw the line between disposable and non-disposable email? What prevents anyone from creating @gmail.com addresses?

You need a valid phone number to create a gmail account, and you can only have a few accounts attached to the same number. Google is "trusted" because they actively try to prevent spammers from joining their platform. Disposable email platforms don't, they let you create as many as you like.

Ok my bad gmail was not a good example. Lets go with outlook account then. Just tried and it definitely doesn't need phone number. And I wouldn't consider outlook disposable platform.

Re: Mozilla's Firefox Relay to be added to disposable-email-domains blacklist

#180

Post by sahkopoyta »

josephcsible wrote: post #161
sahkopoyta wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really get this. Where do you draw the line between disposable and non-disposable email? What prevents anyone from creating @gmail.com addresses?

The phone number requirement?

See my other comment. Gmail was bad example, outlook has no restrictions.
Post reply on HN