Live data from Hacker News

Why don’t we do email verification in reverse?

blog.yossarian.net

321–329 of 329 posts

Re: Why don’t we do email verification in reverse?

#321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I started on my first project as a junior engineer I thought I was being clever to build an app without any passwords: every time you wanted to login you received a new email with a link to log you in. Technically, this worked great but after a while I received many complaints from frustrated users who kept looking for the “signup form”…

ImprovMX does this just fine

That's crazy! I was reading the article and kept in mind what we did in ImprovMX and was surprised to see we were mentioned in the comment :D

We did, tried something "original" in the login part, by offering a "one time login link" to our users instead of the standard flow. To be honest, we believe this was a bad idea.

The flow in itself is good and works fine (supposing email delivery works), but as @simonw perfectly said it, "resist the temptation to innovate around login!".

Offering that original "one time login link" is a frequent cause of support request because some users doesn't receive it, doesn't know what to do or how. They are not used to a change on login and this causes more troubles down the road than a standard flow.

That's why we later on decided to add the standard "password" login and tried to reverse that original flow. We still have users that have accounts with no password set though (still connecting via the original "one time login link").

Re: Why don’t we do email verification in reverse?

#322
I think @simonw clearly explained the problem around the login flow: "resist the temptation to innovate around login!". But I'd like to add more from this.

First, this will always depend on the product you offer. If you target highly specialized tech people, why not, they are most often open to changes. For the rest, it won't never be a good idea.

We tried implemeting a "one time login link" at ImprovMX, like a few others commented here. One drawback we saw was a surge in support requests from people having issues receiving the email, or not understanding how to connect. We could debate on this but definitely, doing something "original" was not a great idea.

But regarding the suggestions made by the original post, I can clearly see a lot (A LOT) of issues:

1. Changing the flow from what the users are used to: Clearly, once you have entered your email and password, you are expecting to receive an email. It's probable that a small percentage of users will close the window once they see the next page asking to send an email, without even reading it, loosing the "mailto:" link with the special token. They will also be lost on what to do; They'll expect an email, and won't understand the need to send one. In a more broader sense, changing the flow will require the users to think harder than usual on what to do, causing more users to leave and never finish the registration form

2. Matching the proper email If they happen to click on that mailto, they will have to remember which email they entered in the form, and will have to keep that in mind when sending the email. For me, if I click on a mailto, I'll have a GMail tab open to send that email, and I have 5 aliases registered. It will require an extra caution to select the appropriate one.

3. Having that email available If the user registers via his phone using an email not configured on that phone, he won't be able to send an email on that "mailto". This will require to copy/paste the link (and copying a mailto on a browser results in A LOT of changes on what is copied), find a way to share that copied data onto a device that has the appropriate email configured.

4. Custom emails Some users enter their email using the specialty of Gmail, such as user+label@gmail.com. When they'll send an email, they won't be able to add that "+label", causing the account creaton to fail

5. SPF/DKIM/DMARC, seriously? Wrapping your head around how these 3 standards works requires significat efforts. And yes, without them, you can not guarantee that the email is truly send by that domain. But still, many custom domains doesn't have a proper DMARC implemented and they can still spoof your account creation. In order to avoid this issue, the only best way is to keep the original flow : the services sends an email to the one the user gave.

Definitely, this is not a good idea to implement for so many reasons, but I agree on the original thought: The current flow has its own issues that needs to be resolved.

One flow I prefer, that doesn't fix everything but still remove a lot of headaches, is to send a code by email when the user has hit "Create my account". The next pages shows that the service expects the code sent by email. Once the user receives the code by email (ideally, having the code in the subject), they can enter it in order to validate their account and they are then automatically logged in a fully activated service.

This removes a few issues, such as:

Not having the email account configured on the same device Ending in a splash page right after creating an account Ending in a splash page when clicking on the link in the email Havign to connect to the service even though you did all the proper validation (I hate that)

The only issue remaining is to ensure the email arrives quite fast. But as long as we need email verification, we will have a hard time fixing this, as it is outside of both the service, and the user hand.

Re: Why don’t we do email verification in reverse?

#324
The proposed solution breaks down when you're trying to register with an alias that you can't send from. For example, I share an alias with my wife that we use for shared logins, shared notifications, etc. The burden of helping her be able to send from that address is sufficiently high that I would likely pass on any service that transitioned to this mode of operation.

Re: Why don’t we do email verification in reverse?

#325
post #315
post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> such b.s > I think you skipped over parts of my post > "I refuse to change" is what you are saying > you can think about this longer than a minute > if you read my comment before replying Why are you so hostile? Why use an online forum at all if you will attack anyone engaging with you? You do have some good points there, but is this really the only way you are capable of expressing them?

You seem to interpret attacks against your argument as attacks against your character, that's not the case. "Such b.s." refers to what you said, the rest of what you quoted is hostile but not to you as a person but a criticism of your thinking process and an expression of frustration when you take the time to replh but ignore the plain points I made in my comment and make generalized conclusions like how email is the…

I give up. If you don't see any ad-hominem in the parts I quoted for your convenience, then nothing I say will change your mind. If this is the least hostility you are capable of deploying against a person, thanks for trying I guess. Go forth into the world and yell in people's faces; some might benefit from it?

Re: Why don’t we do email verification in reverse?

#326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's a "fake" email address? If you can get emails to an email address then it isn't fake and you are in control of it, at least for the time being

All the various 10-minute-mail services.

Not really fake if you can receive email is it? Maybe disposable is a better word

Re: Why don’t we do email verification in reverse?

#327
post #42
post #2

Some reasons: - Not everyone will have set email up on the phone. - If a laptop is used it adds more complexity if the email is not set up on the device, (or e.g if Gmail is used via a web browser) - Not everyone will use the Mail app as default and will need to pick the right app - There may be multiple emails and additional complexity to pick the right 'from' if there are multiple emails being used. - It is a test…

> Not everyone will have set email up on the phone. Exactly. And not everyone accepts HTML E-Mail, i.e. I really hate these "endless" state carrying URLs, which wrap around in my 99 chars wide terminal windows. A short SHA-xxx key should be sufficient, "dear" web form designers. And last but not least I use greylisting, which still is a useful tool to suppress spam, but delays confirmation emails.

Text emails don't have a limited width either. If your email reader and/or terminal app is not able to deal with long URLs then that is really YOUR problem.

Re: Why don’t we do email verification in reverse?

#328
post #15

Because most people have aliases to signup Either mail+alias@gmail.com or mail-list@company.com. For instance, I used admin@, devops@, invoice@, etc. in the places I worked. Each of them includes multiple users (leadership chain and the team)

Most??? I use that, but I'm 100% sure a minority. You're generalizing HN crowd, but you didn't.

Well, it's way to circumvent extra costs created by individual e-mail accounts.

Re: Why don’t we do email verification in reverse?

#329

Besides the security and usability problems others mentioned, I also highly doubt it will improve confirmation conversions. One thing that helped us improve confirmations -- we A/B tested it and confirmation rates increased ~8%: send a 4-digit confirmation code rather than just a link. It's easier and more familiar on mobile, especially if you see the code on the push notification, so don't even need to open the emai…

>send a 4-digit confirmation code rather than just a link. The wording is unclear, so I will ask for clarification: Does the improved email contain both a 4-digit code _and_ a link (URL)?

Yes. both a link and the code.
Post reply on HN