When I am roaming, I notice lots of google results that are HTTP go through a couple of redirects to end up being "age-restricted".
Threeuk is blocking Tutanota
21–30 of 177 posts
Re: Threeuk is blocking Tutanota
#22The 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.
It is not the job of an ISP to decide what is fraudulent and what is not. They should be a dumb pipe between services and people.
That's not how the UK works.
We invented the nanny state.
Re: Threeuk is blocking Tutanota
#23[flagged]
Re: Threeuk is blocking Tutanota
#24When I am roaming, I notice lots of google results that are HTTP go through a couple of redirects to end up being "age-restricted".
Welcome to the Uk nanny state, where safety rules above all else.
Re: Threeuk is blocking Tutanota
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fraudulent ecommerce orders are the only time I've seen tutanota addresses in the wild.
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 heuristic fight. If a service originates an extremely high rate of fraud versus legitimate uses, it's a good heuristic for fraud. It's a shame for legitimate users, but it's also how it's always worked.
And more generally minor (or self-hosted) MTA have always had that issue, it's not news that they get delivered less reliably than big "trusted" mail hosts, and that they can get blacklisted real fast.
Re: Threeuk is blocking Tutanota
#26The 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.
This is 100% my experience.
Re: Threeuk is blocking Tutanota
#27Interestingly, ThreeIE doesn't block them. And I'm fairly happy with them (>1Gbit/s on 5G still blows my mind), except for when I'm travelling to London and have to roam on 3 UK (I agree it sucks)
Out of curiosity, do the UK content blocks apply to people roaming with a foreign sim? I'm also on three ie, just haven't been to the UK in ages.
Re: Threeuk is blocking Tutanota
#28Slightly off topic, but I was with Three UK for a while. Reception was universally terrible, and trying to use mobile data was a joke. This was in a small urban centre... called London. Would never, ever touch them again. Back on topic, it seems that they are not using Bluecoat/Symantec Site review (which I suspect other providers do), which has the domain categorised correctly: https://sitereview.bluecoat.com/#/look…
I had them in Ireland. They were horrible.
First there was a stupid internet filtering proxy supposedly blocking erotic content but actually blocking a lot more, breaking many websites and forums, VPNs, etc. And also making internet access really slow. The only way to come off this was to ID at the store. This was not a legal requirement in Ireland and only three was doing this crap. All the others just give full internet access by default. I think the UK government enforces this stuff but that's no reason to force it on Irish customers. This was in 2006 or so though. I don't think even the UK had such laws back then (I know they do now).
Then I had an issue logging into their website to top up my account. I called their helpdesk (foreign) which were pure script monkeys and kept insisting my handset needed to be serviced at my expense and asking me to rub the SIM on my Tshirt. I kept trying to explain it had nothing to do with my handset but with their website which I accessed from my computer. But they just stonewalled me with their irrelevant scripts.
In the end I unlocked the handset and moved to tesco mobile. I'll never take 3 or anything from Hutchinson again.
Re: Threeuk is blocking Tutanota
#29Once again I will say that ThreeUK is the worst UK network.
I switched to EE and it’s been a breeze. Giffgaff was also good when I used it.
Re: Threeuk is blocking Tutanota
#30Slightly off topic, but I was with Three UK for a while. Reception was universally terrible, and trying to use mobile data was a joke. This was in a small urban centre... called London. Would never, ever touch them again. Back on topic, it seems that they are not using Bluecoat/Symantec Site review (which I suspect other providers do), which has the domain categorised correctly: https://sitereview.bluecoat.com/#/look…
Three are owned by CK Hutchinson Holdings [1], a Hong-Kong and Cayman islands registered multinational conglomerate that owns a number of telephone/ISP companies, ports, and some gas pipelines, as well as the main HV electricity maintainer in the east and south east of England, UK Power Networks.
Rather than privatisation giving democratic power over essential infrastructure to good-old capitalist citizens, I would politely argue that we appear to have sold it to the Chinese government instead.