11–20 of 143 posts
Fuck. No.
If this is (and to be honest I didn't read it that closely) just about making a particular email public, why not just have an inbound address?
submit@fwdeveryone.com
I'd actually consider using a service that did that.
> We use OAuth to sync with your Gmail inbox so we’ll never ask for the password to your inbox. Fuck. No. If this is (and to be honest I didn't read it that closely) just about making a particular email public, why not just have an inbound address? submit@fwdeveryone.com I'd actually consider using a service that did that.
Thanks for submitting this, I was surprised to load HN and see it here. I've been meaning to do a proper update on what we've been up to for a while, but basically things that we've done since launching: - 99%+ of non-commercial email threads now parse correctly, better than Gmail in most cases. E.g. check out the inline reply parsing here: https://www.fwdeveryone.com/t/Gb8CYKvGS6uFSXdb_hwiTA/blog-po... - We now supp…
> - Permission requests are becoming optional, at least for now. Previously we required permission for all non-anonymized message contributors, now there will be an option to publish stuff immediately and let people anonymize themselves later if they want. If this is excessively abused we'll re-evaluate this, but we've tried to build things to incentivize good judgment. This is horrible ! I mean, people can always be…
That's still the default. There are lots of legitimate use cases for publishing stuff without permission though, e.g. emails from Steve Jobs or whatever.
Normally when social sites get a lot of traction and then die it's because they go into a death spiral of negativity: e.g. Secret, Whisper, Yik Yak, etc. The best practice for avoiding this is to err on the side of too much friction when launching, and then to reduce friction for people who are contributing positively to the community.
That's basically the model we're following. The whole point of the site is to showcase positive interactions between people. E.g. showing conversations between VCs, between academics, lawyers, etc. I think the site is too wonky to get overly negative, but if it starts going that way then we'll be very quick to change things up again.
> We use OAuth to sync with your Gmail inbox so we’ll never ask for the password to your inbox. Fuck. No. If this is (and to be honest I didn't read it that closely) just about making a particular email public, why not just have an inbound address? submit@fwdeveryone.com I'd actually consider using a service that did that.
We'd love to! Unfortunately going from just the last email in the thread to being able to reconstruct the entire thread would be exceedingly difficult.
Also, being able to use DKIM / SPF / DMARC / ARC to ensure the authenticity of conversations is very important to us. If you get a permission request from our site, we want you to be 100% confident that what you see when you preview the thread is going to be what you actually wrote, and that the uploader wasn't able to change the text at all. We support making redactions and anonymizing folks, but are strongly against people being able to change the text of what they or others wrote after the fact.
The whole magic of the site is being able to have the experience of looking over other people's shoulders into their inbox, and seeing how they actually talk with one another when they're not on stage. We're all for reducing friction, but we'd rather do it by just making a really slick Add-on so that we don't have to compromise on that core value.
As for the Gmail OAuth situation, I completely agree and have been raising awareness of this on HN since long before this became a big issue the other day. You can see my tickets requesting narrower OAuth scopes here:
https://issuetracker.google.com/issues?q=reporter:alex.krupp...
Thanks for submitting this, I was surprised to load HN and see it here. I've been meaning to do a proper update on what we've been up to for a while, but basically things that we've done since launching: - 99%+ of non-commercial email threads now parse correctly, better than Gmail in most cases. E.g. check out the inline reply parsing here: https://www.fwdeveryone.com/t/Gb8CYKvGS6uFSXdb_hwiTA/blog-po... - We now supp…
[...]
> - Permission requests are becoming optional, at least for now. Previously we required permission for all non-anonymized message contributors, now there will be an option to publish stuff immediately and let people anonymize themselves later if they want. If this is excessively abused we'll re-evaluate this, but we've tried to build things to incentivize good judgment.
This is a really an abuse of trust. When I send an email, I expect it to exist for a certain audience that's it. If I wanted it to be public, I would have posted it on a public forum. It's not up to the recipient to decide what should be done with my content. I'm the one that decides that. If you want to get legal about it, as the author, the copyright is mine, not the person I send it to.
Not only are you running afoul of privacy, and abuse issues, you're running afoul of legal issues.
This is a really abusive idea.
> We use OAuth to sync with your Gmail inbox so we’ll never ask for the password to your inbox. Fuck. No. If this is (and to be honest I didn't read it that closely) just about making a particular email public, why not just have an inbound address? submit@fwdeveryone.com I'd actually consider using a service that did that.
They want that juicy juicy inbox data. Nope. Nope. Nope.
Thanks for submitting this, I was surprised to load HN and see it here. I've been meaning to do a proper update on what we've been up to for a while, but basically things that we've done since launching: - 99%+ of non-commercial email threads now parse correctly, better than Gmail in most cases. E.g. check out the inline reply parsing here: https://www.fwdeveryone.com/t/Gb8CYKvGS6uFSXdb_hwiTA/blog-po... - We now supp…