Stop Microsoft users sending 'reactions' to email by adding a postfix header

Post by voltaireodactyl » Wed, Jul 17, 2024, 3:34 AM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #118

karaterobot wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From that article: > (So if you want to opt out of Google Maps and Wi-Fi Sense at the same time, you must change your SSID of, say, myhouse to myhouse_optout_nomap. Technology is great.) I knew about the Google Maps thing, I didn't know about this. That kind of stuff is so presumptuous and user hostile it's outrageous.

Would it be better to have an op-out database, where you have to log in with a Google account, and prove that you own the device somehow using geolocation? The system has to be resistant against bad actors taking someone else off the map who chooses to opt in. It would be better if the syntax were simpler, like changing myhouse to __myhouse (double underscore == private identifier). By setting SSID a certain way, you…

Post by SoftTalker » Wed, Jul 17, 2024, 3:41 AM UTC

utensil4778 wrote: post #28

p51-remorse wrote: post #11

I kind of get why we don’t like this in email, but for SMS and Slack I’ve thoroughly enjoyed reactions. They’re a way to say “I received this and have a positive reaction to it, with no further communication necessary”. Replaces a lot of useless typing I had to do to sound polite when saying “fine, no further comment”. And then getting a notification from the other party acknowledging my acknowledgment… yuck.

It should be entirely socially acceptable to respond to any trivial message with "ACKNOWLEDGED" á la Picard

Post by SoftTalker » Wed, Jul 17, 2024, 3:45 AM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #91

whyoh wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I, just like the blog author, disable remote images in emails. So I wouldn't get the "intended experience" anyway. Actually, does anyone besides Outlook users get the intended experience here? Second, "reactions" are not part of the email culture or the standard email specs. It's unexpected and awkward. So it's not being "anti-reaction" in general, it's being against some feature that only works in MS email apps, whi…

> Second, "reactions" are not part of the email culture or the standard email specs. It's unexpected and awkward. Another old dog refusing to learn a new trick. If you want to talk about not part of email culture, let's not forget images weren't part of the original. So people got over that. They embraced it just like they embraced HTML emails and everything else. You can stand in the middle of the stream, but it's j…

Post by nlawalker » Wed, Jul 17, 2024, 3:55 AM UTC

verandaguy wrote: post #122

nlawalker wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not opt-in for the owner of the network, who should really have a say in the matter. Why? It’s literally just a shortcut for asking for the password from someone who already has it and then having it read it out loud or texted. If the owner of the network doesn’t want that happening they need to explain that in either case.

It’s a shortcut that deprives the network owner of agency. As the person running the network, should you not have some degree of control over who gets to join your network, be it fully open, fully closed, or anywhere in between?

Post by kelnos » Wed, Jul 17, 2024, 4:02 AM UTC

voltaireodactyl wrote: post #121

kazinator wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it be better to have an op-out database, where you have to log in with a Google account, and prove that you own the device somehow using geolocation? The system has to be resistant against bad actors taking someone else off the map who chooses to opt in. It would be better if the syntax were simpler, like changing myhouse to __myhouse (double underscore == private identifier). By setting SSID a certain way, you…

This assumes such a database is necessary in this first place, which in my mind would require serious justification to prove, given that it creates a situation where the customer’s security is degraded by default.