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

Detect up to 1327 disposable email providers with MailChecker

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 46 posts

Re: Detect up to 1327 disposable email providers with MailChecker

#21

Post by mmccaff »

zrail wrote: post #17
wanderfowl wrote: post #9

If your site will be sending something of value over email, then people will want to use a real address, and you don't need this. On the other hand, if you just want a user ID, then it doesn't matter what they use, and you don't need this, either. So, if you use this, you're a site who wants a real deliverable address for some reason, but which doesn't offer enough benefit to the user to naturally compel them to shar…

I built this kind of check into my ecommerce sites for high-value items. They're disproportionally susceptible to fraud and carding for some reason, and implementing a "no free email provider" check has cut fraud on those items to zero.

Yes, this. Processing fraudulent cards can result in a costly sum of chargebacks for the seller, and a fake email address is a very strong indicator that the person is a fraudster. Other services like Maxmind minFraud consider the email address and many other attributes when ranking the likelihood that the order is coming from a fraudster. It doesn't mean that you have to disallow the order from being saved (or whatever), just that you might want to flag it for manual review before processing the CC to capture payment.

Re: Detect up to 1327 disposable email providers with MailChecker

#22

Post by JupiterMoon »

zrail wrote: post #17
wanderfowl wrote: post #9

If your site will be sending something of value over email, then people will want to use a real address, and you don't need this. On the other hand, if you just want a user ID, then it doesn't matter what they use, and you don't need this, either. So, if you use this, you're a site who wants a real deliverable address for some reason, but which doesn't offer enough benefit to the user to naturally compel them to shar…

I built this kind of check into my ecommerce sites for high-value items. They're disproportionally susceptible to fraud and carding for some reason, and implementing a "no free email provider" check has cut fraud on those items to zero.

This point is orthogonal to the OP's.

Re: Detect up to 1327 disposable email providers with MailChecker

#24

Post by pdkl95 »

imglorp wrote: post #16
caf wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Verification emails serve the purpose of ensuring that people don't sign up other people's email addresses.

And if they do, why is that bad?

Because of the script that destroys email addresses by signing them up for 5000 mailing lists.

Re: Detect up to 1327 disposable email providers with MailChecker

#25

Post by zrail »

JupiterMoon wrote: post #22
zrail wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I built this kind of check into my ecommerce sites for high-value items. They're disproportionally susceptible to fraud and carding for some reason, and implementing a "no free email provider" check has cut fraud on those items to zero.

This point is orthogonal to the OP's.

OP's point as I understand it is "there is no circumstance where you need this, because you're either providing value or you're shit."

My point is that there are legitimate circumstances where you are providing value but in a way that people take advantage of for unrelated fraudulent purposes.

Re: Detect up to 1327 disposable email providers with MailChecker

#26

Post by Menge »

westi wrote: post #15
wanderfowl wrote: post #9

If your site will be sending something of value over email, then people will want to use a real address, and you don't need this. On the other hand, if you just want a user ID, then it doesn't matter what they use, and you don't need this, either. So, if you use this, you're a site who wants a real deliverable address for some reason, but which doesn't offer enough benefit to the user to naturally compel them to shar…

Except you probably do need this if your site allows posting of user generated content, because spammers love these throwaway email addresses.

Spammers who bother with email based registration sites at all, often take the time to routinely acquire one address from a major free provider and use it everywhere they can't use a throwaway as well as get naive people to send email to it.

For other people who kind of don't trust your site, its future, or its security, but are too lazy to create extra accounts, you are forcing them to do a full evaluation in a way that adds additional weight to the possibility the site is an actual data broker today instead of an existential spam threat.

Personally, if I decided a site was bellow the threshold for my real email on an initial encounter and then I saw it perform this kind of detection, I wouldn't touch the site again.

Re: Detect up to 1327 disposable email providers with MailChecker

#27

Post by dogma1138 »

hushmail.com is on that list, this is an increased privacy email with built-in PGP and encryption support, and it's a paid service this is hardly a throwaway email, funny enough their alias domains (e.g. nym.hush.com) aren't on that list, if any one will use it as a throwaway email (i do) they'll use the alias function and delete or suspended the alias after the signup (that's what i do, if i need to reset a password i recreate the alias). That list seem also to contain ISP's from eastern Europe and Asia so I would go over that list very carefully before implementing it because it might break your site.

Re: Detect up to 1327 disposable email providers with MailChecker

#29

Post by detaro »

therealidiot wrote: post #2

I've encountered sites that do this kind of check before, and I usually just don't bother signing up. It's usually the case that I didn't /really/ want to sign up anyway, but I needed something (that with a little effort I could find elsewhere)

You probably have encountered even more sites that use this, and didn't notice because you didn't try giving them a throwaway address. Which might be exactly the point of using the filter.
Post reply on HN