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

FWD:Everyone

fwdeveryone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 143 posts

Re: FWD:Everyone

#121

Post by Alex3917 »

welly wrote: post #89
Alex3917 wrote: post #3

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…

I registered and verified my email address, and then tried to log in only to find it didn't accept my password. The "reset password" doesn't respond or do anything so I'm unable to log in or reset my password.

The reset password button should send an email, there just isn't currently a modal giving any indication that it did anything. The front end is currently in a feature freeze until we finish the React re-write, but then we'll fix this.

In general though there is no max length on the passwords and all characters are valid.

Re: FWD:Everyone

#122

Post by momentmaker »

jeswin wrote: post #30

Sync my inbox? So basically, if you get hacked, all my emails are public. Or at the very least, an untrusted third party (you) gets to read everyone's private email? No way I'll use it, nor allow anyone else I know to do so.

I feel like this would be a good use case to use blockchain where the code would be public and your email messages could be encrypted.

Re: FWD:Everyone

#123

Post by Alex3917 »

2ion wrote: post #81

> * Less work than blogging, way more benefits > > * Build a community around your inbox > > * Only share the emails you intend to It's just a fancy mailing list then? Minus the SMTP leg, plus privacy/consent issues and moving to a non-free storage format as well as concentrating the presence of the "thread" at one site. The best email lore out there is saved to mailing list archives and can be linked to and shared j…

> It's just a fancy mailing list then?

It's more of a social network built around email conversations. E.g. we make it easy to not only to leave comments and share on social, but also to embed threads within any other site.

Unlike email lists, we're also designed to make it easy to share great conversations after the fact, rather than having everyone copied on every message as it happens. I think one good use case for the site is sharing the best conversations from otherwise private mailing lists. (With everyone's permission, or if the list specifically allows it.)

> moving to a non-free storage format

If you look at the API response for our threads, it's actually much easier to parse than any archival format.

That said we're not (currently) an archival product; we don't store the original raw messages, and we don't output them into archival formats designed for longterm storage. I would like to integrate with some archival products in the future though. Right now when you donate your email archives to a university, they are only readable in the reading room of the university after signing an NDA with the librarian. I think we offer a good solution for making it easy to redact some of the more interesting threads and get them on the web, and I think a lot of that stuff would be super interesting.

Re: FWD:Everyone

#124

Post by Alex3917 »

yellowapple wrote: post #104
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It requires opt-in from all participants in the conversation, as Alex posted down this thread last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17401425 > We actually currently require double opt-in permission for each message contributor in a thread to share stuff publicly. That might change in the future, we're still playing around with the model. And yes, it does violate basic expectations - that's on purpose.

Per Alex's comment on this post (and, in fact, the current top comment): "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 ince…

So just to clarify, we're changing the product to make it possible to upload stuff without permission, but we're not trying to induce bad behavior.

E.g. Gmail has a reply all button and a forward button, but they don't encourage users to abuse them. They're just there for situations where it's (hopefully) appropriate, and they trust users to exercise good judgment. And for the most part it works, since there are only so many times you can abuse those features before people stop sending you emails.

There are many times when it's easy to get verbal permission from someone, but difficult or impossible to get email permission, e.g. if their email address has changed.

Re: FWD:Everyone

#125

Post by joeframbach »

larkeith wrote: post #48
Alex3917 wrote: post #3

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…

One thing you almost certainly want to change is the site's behavior with Javascript disabled - right now, it just shows a white screen with the text "Loading FWD:Everyone". It's a bit of a pet peeve for me to see pages like this that are primarily static but are not accessible without JS, but I can understand that making a page built with a JS frontend work without it might be more work than it's worth, at least for…

This also applies to the case where JS fails. What if the browser supports js, but the request failed, or there was a syntax error, or some other fatal that halts js? Your users will be left on a lark without anything to look at.

Re: FWD:Everyone

#126

Post by Spivak »

Alex3917 wrote: post #111
Spivak wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That line of logic doesn't work. A protocol is neither legal not illegal. It would be like saying that Swedish is illegal. The law largely doesn't care how you do something. It's also not a necessary condition because an internal company mail server wouldn't run into copyright issues since the company owns the copyright on all their employees' work. "Uploading a copyrighted work that I downloaded via GET with POST mu…

> A protocol is neither legal not illegal. My point is that when you send someone something you've written as an email, it constitutes an informal agreement (essentially a private contract) with the recipient. > It's also not a necessary condition because an internal company mail server wouldn't run into copyright issues since the company owns the copyright on all their employees' work. That's true, but anyone with a…

> it constitutes an informal agreement (essentially a private contract) with the recipient.

Is there any precedent you're basing this opinion on? Because it's not like your company just gets to decide this.

What are the terms of this supposed contract? If JK Rowling sent you the text of Harry Potter do you believe you have the right to distribute it through your site?

Do you believe that there would be a meaningful difference between Netflix sending you the same bits over email vs HTTP?

Re: FWD:Everyone

#127

Post by ryboflavin8 »

We used this at the editorial house I'm at to organize the editing pipeline. Super helpful when there are a bunch of people passing around different parts of a project over email. Really hope this succeeds.

Re: FWD:Everyone

#128

Post by epicide »

2ion wrote: post #81

> * Less work than blogging, way more benefits > > * Build a community around your inbox > > * Only share the emails you intend to It's just a fancy mailing list then? Minus the SMTP leg, plus privacy/consent issues and moving to a non-free storage format as well as concentrating the presence of the "thread" at one site. The best email lore out there is saved to mailing list archives and can be linked to and shared j…

I'm really struggling to find a good use for this.

Putting content in a blog post means the author thought the information was worth at least copying and pasting (and possibly even editing). A lot of blog posts aren't even worth the time reading the title. This is somehow less than that.

Re: FWD:Everyone

#129

Post by jonathankoren »

Alex3917 wrote: post #111
Spivak wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That line of logic doesn't work. A protocol is neither legal not illegal. It would be like saying that Swedish is illegal. The law largely doesn't care how you do something. It's also not a necessary condition because an internal company mail server wouldn't run into copyright issues since the company owns the copyright on all their employees' work. "Uploading a copyrighted work that I downloaded via GET with POST mu…

> A protocol is neither legal not illegal. My point is that when you send someone something you've written as an email, it constitutes an informal agreement (essentially a private contract) with the recipient. > It's also not a necessary condition because an internal company mail server wouldn't run into copyright issues since the company owns the copyright on all their employees' work. That's true, but anyone with a…

You really, really, really need to get a lawyer, because this sounds like you're just spitballing here.

Re: FWD:Everyone

#130

Post by vinayms »

Beyond the privacy concerns raised by others, I am not sure what this would amount to. Interesting conversations don't happen everyday, so this site might become just a collection of random email conversations that people submit that think is interesting. I am not sure if anyone wants to read them either.

Further, I don't think everything is "communityfiable". Like I said earlier, interesting conversations don't happen often, so stuff like following a person due to his one email upload or whatever, recommendations etc all seem a bit too much. Following would make sense if it is someone who uploads stuff often, but in this case anyone who does it would be breaching someone else's privacy unless the uploader is part of the conversation and everyone agrees to share it. But, again, as I said earlier, interesting conversations happen only once in a while.

That said, I remember how twitter was derided in the beginning as being a platform for people to share boring stuff that no one cares about, but it turned out to become something else, though not by design but only by chance, and is now quite successful.

Post reply on HN