[deleted]
FWD:Everyone
21–30 of 143 posts
Re: FWD:Everyone
#22Really thought this was some high-brow joke - nope! This is a real product/service to share your emails.
I think this is a truly terrible idea. But what do I know? google thought it was a good idea to have copies of the usernames/passwords for all the sites I visit stored on their servers. I think that's also a truly terrible idea - but they're a billion dollar company.
I would never use (to share) and I am doubtful I would find any thread between two other people worthwhile. But if they can find a paying userbase, mazel tov.
Re: FWD:Everyone
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
> - 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…
> The default must be requiring explicit permission from all participants. 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 i…
> That's still the default.
That's good to know.
> There are lots of legitimate use cases for publishing stuff without permission though, e.g. emails from Steve Jobs or whatever.
Just because he's dead, and was a public figure, is it morally acceptable to publish private email? Or even legal, without permission from his estate?
A quick search gives me the following.
https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2018/04/is-it-legal-t...
https://writersweekly.com/this-weeks-article/legal_emails
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/3980/is-it-legal-to-...
Edit: Also:
http://nulawreview.org/extralegalrecent/do-not-forward-why-p...
Re: FWD:Everyone
#24[deleted]
Re: FWD:Everyone
#25I signed up, but I cant figure out how to delete my fweveryone account- is that not an option?
You can use Postman or whatever to send a DELETE request to https://api.fwdeveryone.com/account with your authorization token, but it's not in the front end yet.
Alternatively just send us an email and I'll delete it.
Re: FWD:Everyone
#26> 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.
> why not just have an inbound address? 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 pre…
> Also, being able to use DKIM / SPF / DMARC / ARC to ensure the authenticity of conversations is very important to us.
Are you sure you have really tried? when you forward an email, it includes all the headers you need to for your validations.
Re: FWD:Everyone
#27Thanks 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…
Certainly intriguing. I _really_ like the notion of automatically correlating and tagging work emails to internal business content, or wiki. Not sure about the "public" tracking side of the site.
Re: FWD:Everyone
#28Thanks 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…
> The default must be requiring explicit permission from all participants
If you send me an e-mail, absent an NDA, I generally have permission to disclose it to third parties. If FWD:Everyone required permission from all participants, they would simply fall prey to FWD:Everyone2 who didn't.
Re: FWD:Everyone
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why not just have an inbound address? 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 pre…
> Also, being able to use DKIM / SPF / DMARC / ARC to ensure the authenticity of conversations is very important to us. Are you sure you have really tried? when you forward an email, it includes all the headers you need to for your validations.
It only includes the headers of the last email in the thread. But that doesn't guarantee that the person forwarding the email hasn't changed what someone else wrote in the quoted reply text. To me that's actually a serious security issue, and in the long term is more serious than the OAuth thing (which I'm confident that Google will eventually fix).
If I'm wrong and it's possible to do then by all means I'll do it though. The one approach that would work is building an InboxSDK plugin and having it forward every message in a thread automatically, because that way you'd have the header of each message. But then the security story is arguably much worse than OAuth.
Re: FWD:Everyone
#30Sync 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.