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

Google is testing expiring emails in the new Gmail

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 250 posts

Re: Google is testing expiring emails in the new Gmail

#241

Post by pjmlp »

euyyn wrote: post #239
pjmlp wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hard to separate pending tasks from just conversations. Emails aren't tasks. In any case, Outlook allows for assigning tasks to emails and organize them. > Hard to split conversations into separate threads when two topics diverge. An UI/UX design issue. If the subject is no longer the same, one could provide an UI feature that allows them to be viewed separately. > Leaving a conversation isn't just your decision: y…

> Emails aren't tasks. Your use of email must be vastly different from mine then. Corporate email is pretty much a way for other people to add stuff to one's TO-DO list. > If the subject is no longer the same, one could provide an UI feature that allows them to be viewed separately. Many times an email conversation forks into two topics, each of which is only relevant to some of the people in the recipient's list.

I use email for exchanging messages with other people.

Jira is for ToDo list.

So each people is free to organize on their own email client as they want to see their email threads, provided the UI provides aggregation by topic.

Re: Google is testing expiring emails in the new Gmail

#242

Post by kafquaesque »

jamiethompson wrote: post #49
kafquaesque wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was a high-profile case and the screenshot was evidence of a crime, I’m assuming they have people that could weigh in as an expert on doctoring images?

How would you differentiate between a screenshot of an email in gmail and a screenshot of an email in gmail where someone had inspected the source and changed the text before screenshotting?

Good point. If it was the only evidence and didn’t connect with anything else it would not be substantial proof. I would think it could add to a story but not be definitive proof? You are describing the defense against the screenshot which could be backed up by “expert” testimony. Here is something I found on e-mails being edited in outlook even: https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/1135234-can-i-protect... (questionable source)

Re: Google is testing expiring emails in the new Gmail

#243

Post by eikenberry »

danans wrote: post #81
eikenberry wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the link requires you to have a google account, and every google account is also a gmail account...

Actually, you can sign up for an account without GMail: https://accounts.google.com/SignUpWithoutGmail Disclosure: Googler, but not on GMail.

Learn something new every day... Thanks.

Re: Google is testing expiring emails in the new Gmail

#244

Post by inopinatus »

ajnin wrote: post #236
inopinatus wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything it sounds closer in outline to djb's proposed Internet Mail 2000 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Mail_2000 ) in which initial storage is the responsibility of the sender, not the recipient, thereby making spam much more expensive. This implementation, however - especially centralized tracking & policy enforcement, and HTTP as the delivery substrate instead of some properly designed protocol - typ…

> djb's proposed Internet Mail 2000 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Mail_2000 ) in which initial storage is the responsibility of the sender Seems even better for spammers and advertisers of the world since they wouldn't even have to send mail nor store it, they could just write mail server software to trivially generate it on demand, and they would instantly know who's opening their mail.

No, that won't happen, because the consequences are severe: they're instantly, globally, permanently and publicly blacklisted as a spam server.

Re: Google is testing expiring emails in the new Gmail

#245

Post by rakoo »

twhb wrote: post #155

Gmail intentionally deviates from the IMAP spec, forcing email clients to either become Gmail clients or work poorly with Gmail. They refuse to support IMAP push, instead saving push for the Gmail API. Recently they introduced AMP for Email, which happens to work via emails that only Gmail can read. Now they introduce another feature which happens to work via emails that only Gmail can read. I think it's pretty clear…

> They refuse to support IMAP push, instead saving push for the Gmail API

What are you talking about ? The IDLE command is completely supported and I'm using it in my mail client with no issues at all.

Re: Google is testing expiring emails in the new Gmail

#246

Post by rakoo »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #206
JasonFruit wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Email does work fine. We have a similar solution for encryption: PGP. If you do the encryption yourself instead of relying on your email client to handle it, it works fine. Type your text, encrypt it, then put it in an email; get a response, decrypt it, and read it — it's easy, and it works. People who say PGP is too hard to use are usually relying on a plugin for their email client, or some other unreliable, "encryp…

That is absolutely not the way to get people to use it. Very few people can be bothered to muck about with PGP manually. The few geeks who want it or need it are already doing that. What we need is a way to make E2E encryption easy and straightforward, like Signal or Wire, where it's easy, automatic and default enabled.

That's what autocrypt (https://autocrypt.org/) is going to solve. Automatic opportunistic encryption using existing standards.

Re: Google is testing expiring emails in the new Gmail

#247

Post by exikyut »

exikyut wrote: post #182
harshulpandav wrote: post #28

"On the recipient’s side, the person was using the existing version of Gmail and received a link to view the confidential email. The recipient had to log into their Google account once again to view the content." IMO this is an open invitation to phishers.

Possibly. The current ad-hoc approach of "type this URL in" that's used in various places could be extended in this case to "click this link, or alternatively go to this short address and type this short code in". This would actually work because the short URLs would be per-recipient-account - they wouldn't need to be "globally" unique! Alas, we live in a denialist dystopia, not a self-acknowledging one, so the above…

This comment is a bit old now, but I want to clarify some things that I completely skittered over and just didn't explain adequately.

It isn't a case of "not clicking on someone else's link", it's a case of never receiving someone else's link.

As it is, clueless people will forward their links in attempts to let others read their messages. Of course this won't work (I don't expect so anyway).

But, if person A and person B both receive the same short code, which would (obviously/presumably, in such a scheme) unlock different messages for both, that would be a very confusing user experience.

Given the "enterprise security" standpoint this (somewhat) confusing feature seems to be marketed toward, I can see this being the exact kind of situation that enterprises would never want happening (the resulting executive paranoia would undermine the perceived security of the system).

And so this folds into the global social graph thing I was talking about.

Re: Google is testing expiring emails in the new Gmail

#248

Post by Jansemon »

pmlnr wrote: post #232
Jansemon wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely no problem if you set up your server correctly.

Half truth, the age of the domain matters.

But how can they now that? I've got a German domain and denic doesn't list the registration date - only the last update...

Re: Google is testing expiring emails in the new Gmail

#250

Post by vatueil »

kome wrote: post #167
vatueil wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a problem with PayPal, not Gmail. You can't register "myemail" if someone else has already registered "my.email", so PayPal must not have verified the address (unless you accidentally clicked the verification link yourself). There was an article posted recently that complained about how Netflix lets people create multiple accounts using dot variations of the same Gmail address, and plenty of people pointed out…

Well, it's Google that behaves in non-standard way. Let's say that the user verified the email by mistake: the error and misunderstanding is created by google nonstandard particles, not PayPal.

Not at all. Imagine if "myemail" and "my.email" were different accounts: that would result in much more confusion and mis-addressed emails.

It's not as if simply making a typo and entering the wrong email address doesn't happen, either.

Also the relevant standards leave it up to the email host how to handle dots, so it's not even non-standard.

Post reply on HN