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

A ‘frighteningly ambitious’ way to improve email

thenextweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 88 posts

Re: A ‘frighteningly ambitious’ way to improve email

#41

Post by sliverstorm »

rogerbinns wrote: post #10

So if both sender and recipient are using this, they'll end up demanding increasing classifications from each other in an infinite loop? I think the actual solution will turn out to be something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Mail_2000 The important difference is that the master copy of the email resides at the sender, which means it is possible for them to update and revise it. With current SMTP the…

Usually I have zero interest in most of the "E-Mail 2.0" hype that springs up every couple months, but I do actually really like the idea of taking dynamic content a step or two further. I think email is fundamentally good at its intended purpose, but I could see things like revisions fitting in comfortably with the existing paradigm.

Re: A ‘frighteningly ambitious’ way to improve email

#42

Post by arn »

jedberg wrote: post #26
arn wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This system by itself can be frustrating... as the problem is that they tend to challenge-response everyone. I would love to see a system that does automatic spam classification (like gmail), but if you get auto-classified as spam, then you get the challenge-response, as a last ditch effort to get through the spam filter.

That would make it too easy to game the spam system, because now the spammer knows they've been classified as spam, and can keep changing the message until it gets through. This is why it's generally bad practice to reply to an email telling the sender it is spam.

Well, possibly, though spam is a pretty high volume game, and my guess is it's not worth the time for the mass spammers to analyze a few rejects (even if those rejects even do go to their actual address)

It depends on what you prioritize. I prioritize avoiding false-positives, so my spam filter of choice reflects that.

My current spam system (spamstopshere.com) does return bounce/reject messages depending on what filter the email triggers.

Re: A ‘frighteningly ambitious’ way to improve email

#43

Post by gst »

nonamegiven wrote: post #39

I do not thing email is broken, nor do I think it's a todo list. In fact it's my favorite part of the internet. But y'all go ahead.

Totally agree. Email works perfectly fine for me. For private purposes as well as for my job. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I don't see anything that's broken or that would require fixing.

Re: A ‘frighteningly ambitious’ way to improve email

#44

Post by adastra »

A comment that I feel very strongly about. First, let me say the primary thesis of adding structure (and asking your senders to add structure on their own) is a great idea. My email inbox took a quantum leap when I simply structured all emails into one of two types: 1) emails from people I care about and need to respond to quickly + emails from people I don't know. 2) Everything else, including all newsletters, email lists, etc.

However, I have to strongly object to the expired emails feature. The worst part about being an entrepreneur are the people that never reply back. Not a yes. Not a no. Rejection I can handle. But the people who stop responding or never responded create a lot of heartburn in my life. And the same goes for trying to maintain a social life. Having an acquaintance or new friend never respond to an invite for coffee or a beer is incredibly frustrating.

Any system that would increase the number of emails that go unresponded to is a bad system.

How about instead, you reply by saying "too busy right now, maybe check back with me in 6 weeks?" I've found that cuts down dramatically on the number of unwanted requests. People that really care will check back. Others won't. And you can always escalate the rejection from there.

Re: A ‘frighteningly ambitious’ way to improve email

#45

Post by mctx »

samstave wrote: post #35
shurcooL wrote: post #20

Yep. http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/3313/imagekm.png Give more power to benevolent senders. I've had similar thoughts. I don't want to waste other people's time, but the current email protocol forces me to. There is no way to specify if your email is... 1. "Check this out sometime during the week, it's funny stuff, if you have time. You need a 24"+ screen and 10 mins, so don't even look at this email on your phon…

People forget about IM. For all #1 items, IM the link. It is temporary, and ephemeral. For all #2 items, email them.

But which IM? Gmail chat? Facebook PM? Twitter DM? MSN? AIM? Skype? iMessage?

Re: A ‘frighteningly ambitious’ way to improve email

#46

Post by thrownaway2424 »

arn wrote: post #42
jedberg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would make it too easy to game the spam system, because now the spammer knows they've been classified as spam, and can keep changing the message until it gets through. This is why it's generally bad practice to reply to an email telling the sender it is spam.

Well, possibly, though spam is a pretty high volume game, and my guess is it's not worth the time for the mass spammers to analyze a few rejects (even if those rejects even do go to their actual address) It depends on what you prioritize. I prioritize avoiding false-positives, so my spam filter of choice reflects that. My current spam system (spamstopshere.com) does return bounce/reject messages depending on what fil…

You're wrong. Spammers actively try to monitor their success rates and game the filters.

As for the original idea, backscatter is to be avoided at all costs. Nobody likes bounce messages and so forth for mail they never sent. Much better to reject mail at SMTP time, than generate backscatter to the alleged envelope sender after the fact.

Re: A ‘frighteningly ambitious’ way to improve email

#49

Post by arn »

thrownaway2424 wrote: post #46
arn wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, possibly, though spam is a pretty high volume game, and my guess is it's not worth the time for the mass spammers to analyze a few rejects (even if those rejects even do go to their actual address) It depends on what you prioritize. I prioritize avoiding false-positives, so my spam filter of choice reflects that. My current spam system (spamstopshere.com) does return bounce/reject messages depending on what fil…

You're wrong. Spammers actively try to monitor their success rates and game the filters. As for the original idea, backscatter is to be avoided at all costs. Nobody likes bounce messages and so forth for mail they never sent. Much better to reject mail at SMTP time, than generate backscatter to the alleged envelope sender after the fact.

So how would you prioritize avoiding false positives without backscatter?

I get a lot of spam, so manually reading a spam folder is not a feasible solution.

Re: A ‘frighteningly ambitious’ way to improve email

#50

Post by lowboy »

adastra wrote: post #44

A comment that I feel very strongly about. First, let me say the primary thesis of adding structure (and asking your senders to add structure on their own) is a great idea. My email inbox took a quantum leap when I simply structured all emails into one of two types: 1) emails from people I care about and need to respond to quickly + emails from people I don't know. 2) Everything else, including all newsletters, email…

You will receive a response:

> The email will disappear into the ‘Expired’ box and the sender will receive a friendly notification that they can move it back to the queue, change it to a different format, or delete it altogether and maybe just give me a call

Post reply on HN