51–60 of 62 posts
One of the things I hate about Git is that it requires an email address. It doesn't let you just leave a blank value, it needs something that resembles an email address. I get that email is how the kernel-devs do it. But IMO it's inappropriate for the version-control software to link a particular communication mechanism. Sure you can use a fake email address, and many of us do. Finally github has a feature to use the…
"My email address isn't on the web" Yes it is, you put it there. https://github.com/garybernhardt/dotfiles/blob/master/.mutt/... I fail to see the dramatic issue here. FWIW, I once got a very good (unsolicited) job offer after putting code on the web, more than a decade before github even existed.
Over decades, despite terms of service and laws, it looks like people have been tamed to think that if they put their email address or phone number on the web, they're asking to be spammed or called or sent communication they don't want. It shows how poor a job laws and education have done. Backlash like this article is warranted and required to change this defeatist attitude.
They're not asking to be spammed, but risking it. Laws will punish offenders, but not free you from your personal responsibility to protect what's worth something to you.
> Backlash like this article is warranted and required to change this defeatist attitude.
I'm sure it will lead to harsher punishment for spammers who exploit one's stupidly putting their personal information on the web and then complaining about bad people seeing and using it, while we're not even punishing corporations whose data leaks due to incompetence are putting even those at risk who do not exhibit such gross negligence with their personal info.
Why is this a big deal? Of course recruiters search public information. Learn to live with it. If your outrage threshold is this low then you’re going to spent all your life in a state of outrage. It’s nit even interesting let alone important. Information in github, far from being surrounded by an invisible force field of integrity protection, is actually prime hunting territory for recruiters and any recruiter who d…
Notice he said "(they) used the GitHub API to pull my email address", and GitHub API can be used to massively fetch these kind of information for automatic spamming.
Imagine one day you wake up in the morning by few dozens of automatic recruit emails inviting you for a job which don't fit your profile even a bit, will you be happy? This happened to me few times and I'm not very happy about it.
I agreed GitHub shouldn't take the blame because you can hide your email in the account setting, but I don't think he shouldn't be pissed off by the company who was spamming him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Spam is defined as “unsolicited bulk email”. More commonly, unsolicited/unwanted commercial email, see, e.g.: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0038-spam
The commercial aspect is a red-herring, because B2B where there's an existing business relationship are normally excluded from spam laws. The UBE (unsolicited, bulk, email) definition is the one used by most blocklists and filters and ISP AUPs.
No, it's not
> because B2B where there's an existing business relationship are normally excluded from spam laws.
That's not just B2B, but that's part of the definition of “unsolicited”, it doesn't make the commercial part is a red-herring, either in general or in the context of this thread, which did not involve either a pre-existing business relationship or, since you unnecessarily called it out as relevant, a B2B interaction.
> The UBE (unsolicited, bulk, email) definition is the one used by most blocklists and filters
That's because “bulk”, unlike “commercial”, is easily detectable. (And also because because bulk has the most impact, because, bulk.)
> and ISP AUPs.
Virtually all ISP AUPs include prohibition on unlawful use which includes violations of laws concerning unsolicited commercial email.
One of the things I hate about Git is that it requires an email address. It doesn't let you just leave a blank value, it needs something that resembles an email address. I get that email is how the kernel-devs do it. But IMO it's inappropriate for the version-control software to link a particular communication mechanism. Sure you can use a fake email address, and many of us do. Finally github has a feature to use the…
git config --global user.email no@email.invalid And git happily accepts the value, yet the result is not useful to anyone ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.invalid ). Or, just edit your .gitconfig by hand after adding an email and change the value there to whatever you want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The commercial aspect is a red-herring, because B2B where there's an existing business relationship are normally excluded from spam laws. The UBE (unsolicited, bulk, email) definition is the one used by most blocklists and filters and ISP AUPs.
> The commercial aspect is a red-herring No, it's not > because B2B where there's an existing business relationship are normally excluded from spam laws. That's not just B2B, but that's part of the definition of “unsolicited”, it doesn't make the commercial part is a red-herring, either in general or in the context of this thread, which did not involve either a pre-existing business relationship or, since you unneces…
I thought Mr Bernhardt was technical enough to know that pushing commits onto a public web server made those commits and their metadata public information. I get that you don't care for spam, but they used information you published.
Just because it’s published on the internet doesn’t give you absolutely any right to use it. I don’t understand why people don’t get this...
What's the mechanism by which an email address found on a public website shouldn't be used to send email? Who decided on this social policy? I've been on the internet with email since about 1995 and this is the first time I've heard it suggested that public information shouldn't be "used" without permission. (And before you go off on a doxing tirade, let me address this: "using" someone's published physical address would be mailing them something - visiting them in person unannounced and/or republishing their address is definitely against social contract and might even be illegal.)
So what's the supposed social contract here? You found an email address but you're not allowed to email to it without permission? How do you get permission?
If you put your email address out there, people will use it. Maybe github needs to do a better job of conveying what you’re making public when you push a commit, although as a service for programmers it may be reasonable to expect people to understand this already.
I got the impression from the tweet it wasn't about github, it was about the recruiter. The lengths the recruiter is willing to go through to get an email address doesn't start and stop with github.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because it’s published on the internet doesn’t give you absolutely any right to use it. I don’t understand why people don’t get this...
I understand copyright - you created source code, placed it online, didn't apply an open source license to it, so those accessing it have no right to "make use" of the code. What's the mechanism by which an email address found on a public website shouldn't be used to send email? Who decided on this social policy? I've been on the internet with email since about 1995 and this is the first time I've heard it suggested…
Also known as ongoing spam from spammers once they scrape your email address or pull it from an API in violation of that API's terms of service.
Don't forget the bonus invisible tracking image and CAN-SPAM-YOU compliant unsubscribe link at the bottom in gray text to make it harder to see.