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

Threeuk is blocking Tutanota

tutanota.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 177 posts

Re: Threeuk is blocking Tutanota

#161

Post by rnk »

throwaway0x7E6 wrote: post #159
avmich wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the venerable western democracies hate and fear dissent as much as those loathsome dictators do Who specifically hate and fear dissent in western democracies, and what's the mechanism against that?

>Who specifically hate and fear dissent in western democracies the people and entities in power >what's the mechanism against that? disarming the population

I don't buy that as a general principal. You get the odd fascist leader of democracies that wants to do that in say Hungary, Turkey, even the US got a whiff of it. But most people and most politicians actually like democracy and support the ideas around it, they want to be left along and live in peace and prosperity. Pols want power and to crush the other political side in parliment, but ending public dissent is not the plan of most political parties or politicians.

Re: Threeuk is blocking Tutanota

#162

Post by newaccount74 »

masklinn wrote: post #160
newaccount74 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if you block Tutanota the fraudsters will just switch to Gmail, and all you accomplished is that you inconvenienced legit Tutanota users. I wonder why so many companies drag their feet when implementing actually useful anti-fraud measures (like supporting Verified-by-Visa) and instead block random email providers.

> But if you block Tutanota the fraudsters will just switch to Gmail Yet for some reason they're not already using gmail, meaning as far as frausters are concerned there is a benefit to using tutanota. > and all you accomplished is that you inconvenienced legit Tutanota users. No what you've accomplished is reduce tutanota fraud to 0, and inconvenienced frausters.

> reduce tutanota fraud to 0

But that is hardly relevant.

The question is, does blocking Tutanota reduce total fraud, or does it just make fraudsters to move to a different email hoster and you end up with the same total fraud?

Re: Threeuk is blocking Tutanota

#163

Post by nonrandomstring »

schappim wrote: post #31
masklinn wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now I figured it's an ISP. It's not an ISP, it's an email provider. > Modern legal systems usually limit criminal liability to individuals [1]. Companies engaging in acts of collective punishment (That goes for you too Cloudflare) should at least try to raise their ethical standards to those expected by International Law. There is no "criminal liability", and blocking malfeasants on the internet has always been a h…

Totally, especially that CloudFlare wall of harrassment... It is a form of harassment, and it needs to be recognised as such!

I don't think it's "harassment".

It's a wall of incompetence.

Cloudflare are just technically not able to deliver what they pretend to. They profess to offer protection for vulnerable users of the internet who are service providers. In doing so they harm millions of other vulnerable users who are clients. They rob Peter to pay Paul, and then take a moral stand on Free Speech.

Free Speech is a two sided affair. The freedom to write/speak must be matched by the freedom to read/listen.

Cloudflare trample all over the latter and act like it's nothing... because "if you wanna make an omelet you gotta break some eggs". They simply kick the can down the road and so are hypocritical and grandiose.

Re: Threeuk is blocking Tutanota

#164

Post by nonrandomstring »

masklinn wrote: post #25
nonrandomstring wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have two colleagues who regularly send me emails from that domain. For the first , I assumed it was her own domain. When I saw messages from a second person I assumed they might both work for the same company. Now I figured it's an ISP. I checked it out and it looks like a good, legit service for people who don't want creeps and advertisers grubbing through their messages. Three UK have no place blocking traffic fr…

> Now I figured it's an ISP. It's not an ISP, it's an email provider. > Modern legal systems usually limit criminal liability to individuals [1]. Companies engaging in acts of collective punishment (That goes for you too Cloudflare) should at least try to raise their ethical standards to those expected by International Law. There is no "criminal liability", and blocking malfeasants on the internet has always been a h…

Just because it's not "criminal" doesn't mean they're not dicks. And "if you want to make an omelet you gotta break eggs" is neither a reason nor an excuse. It's a sob story you tell yourself to feel better about not being smart enough to figure out a solution that doesn't harm others.

Re: Threeuk is blocking Tutanota

#165

Post by someNameIG »

fmajid wrote: post #85

The UK is almost as bad an enemy of the Internet as Australia and the nanny-state filters are beyond obnoxious. Back when I was with “Vodafone Full Fibre broadband” (in reality shitty VDSL because the truth-in-advertising authority gave ISPs license to lie), they had accidentally blocked StackOverflow for 3 days because it was actually the test site for implementation of the filters and they had been turned on by acc…

As an Australian, the UK seems worse.

Re: Threeuk is blocking Tutanota

#166

Post by yamtaddle »

hrrsn wrote: post #4
schappim wrote: post #3

The same privacy preserving features of Tutanota enjoyed by privacy conscious individuals, make it ideal for fraudsters. We experience a large number of fraudulent ecommerce orders using Tutanota email domains. I'm not shocked to think that this could be an example of an algorithm gone awry based on the signals it received.

Fraudulent ecommerce orders are the only time I've seen tutanota addresses in the wild.

Yeah... any e-commerce system with significant volume's likely to end up with a deny-list for basically all these sorts of services. You lose one real order for every 1,000 fraud attempts, at worst. Easily worth it.

Similar reason lots of US servers used to (? still do ?) block entire IP blocks representing large parts of Asia. If 1% of your legit traffic is coming from those blocks, but 95+% of abuse, brute-force, and exploit attempts, it's a no-brainer to just blackhole them, unless you're at such a huge scale that 1% of legit traffic is still a very large number in absolute terms.

Re: Threeuk is blocking Tutanota

#167

Post by yamtaddle »

newaccount74 wrote: post #162
masklinn wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But if you block Tutanota the fraudsters will just switch to Gmail Yet for some reason they're not already using gmail, meaning as far as frausters are concerned there is a benefit to using tutanota. > and all you accomplished is that you inconvenienced legit Tutanota users. No what you've accomplished is reduce tutanota fraud to 0, and inconvenienced frausters.

> reduce tutanota fraud to 0 But that is hardly relevant. The question is, does blocking Tutanota reduce total fraud, or does it just make fraudsters to move to a different email hoster and you end up with the same total fraud?

Real-world ecommerce systems often end up with quite a long list of email domains that either provide some weight to a "fraud or not?" algo, or are outright banned.

You don't just block tutanota, you block a big, long list of high-abuse email sources, periodically updated.

Re: Threeuk is blocking Tutanota

#168

Post by dm319 »

fmajid wrote: post #85

The UK is almost as bad an enemy of the Internet as Australia and the nanny-state filters are beyond obnoxious. Back when I was with “Vodafone Full Fibre broadband” (in reality shitty VDSL because the truth-in-advertising authority gave ISPs license to lie), they had accidentally blocked StackOverflow for 3 days because it was actually the test site for implementation of the filters and they had been turned on by acc…

Are vodafone still doing their man-in-the-middle business with certificates?

Re: Threeuk is blocking Tutanota

#169

Post by newaccount74 »

yamtaddle wrote: post #167
newaccount74 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> reduce tutanota fraud to 0 But that is hardly relevant. The question is, does blocking Tutanota reduce total fraud, or does it just make fraudsters to move to a different email hoster and you end up with the same total fraud?

Real-world ecommerce systems often end up with quite a long list of email domains that either provide some weight to a "fraud or not?" algo, or are outright banned. You don't just block tutanota, you block a big, long list of high-abuse email sources, periodically updated.

It surprises me that this would be effective, since setting up an email host that's just capable of receiving emails should be trivial.

Then again, maybe I am overestimating fraudsters, and by blocking email hosts that make it too easy to sign up you can get rid of a significant chunk of them...

Re: Threeuk is blocking Tutanota

#170

Post by mattcurious »

jonathantf2 wrote: post #68
mattcurious wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve seen this on IP lookups I’ve done when roaming - surely this is a bad idea for latency? What’s the motivation? Why would they cripple performance further by proxying to an endpoint that could be half away around the world.

It's absolutely horrible - I was in California a few months ago and all my traffic was being sent back to the UK - 300ms ping and about 1mbps each way.

I recall now it was a Twilio Global SIM - I was just using it as an early global sim rather than building on it - all traffic went back to T-Mobile in the US it seemed
Post reply on HN