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

My burner email blocklist blocked me

benjamin.piouffle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–58 of 58 posts

Re: My burner email blocklist blocked me

#51

Post by pushcx »

thenewnewguy wrote: post #12

The article author attemps to make a distintion between "burners" and "aliases" but I don't believe one exists for this usecase. Let's say for the sake of argument that you think blocking burner emails provides meaningful protection (I don't, but services using such a list obviously do). From your perspective, an "alias" is the same as a "burner". Both can be easily generated in bulk by a human or bots, cannot be res…

Or it's a distinction without a difference to the site owner. Ever prod service I've run has seen significantly more abuse from human users using alias services, especially protonmail. I'm not surprised that some owners have chosen to block it entirely, given their resources, but I'd prefer to see it used as a signal in a more sophisticated system if possible.

Re: My burner email blocklist blocked me

#52

Post by OptionOfT »

eloisius wrote: post #3
gruez wrote: post #2

Reminder that apple provides burner emails that are effectively unblockable (because they use the @icloud.com domain, at least for now[1]), for $0.99/month. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48559935

$50/year and Fastmail will let you alias anything@yourdomain.com to your inbox. I use a different email for every company or website I interact with, so I know who spams me.

You can go to outlook.com and add unlimited aliases for your @outlook.com account.

Re: My burner email blocklist blocked me

#54

Post by drdexebtjl »

amukbils wrote: post #47
drdexebtjl wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article specifically calls out for the distinction between burners and aliases. If you give a business a hide-my-email address, they can reach you at that address indefinitely.

Hence my response: > Aliases are fair game .. for organization for just hiding your own email to limit tracking.. that's fair .. but bad, known disposable email generally just costs too much and is too risky for businesses.

Your response… to yourself?

Just type it out in the same comment next time, please.

Re: My burner email blocklist blocked me

#55

Post by amukbils »

drdexebtjl wrote: post #54
amukbils wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence my response: > Aliases are fair game .. for organization for just hiding your own email to limit tracking.. that's fair .. but bad, known disposable email generally just costs too much and is too risky for businesses.

Your response… to yourself? Just type it out in the same comment next time, please.

still learning the ropes on HN ^_^

Re: My burner email blocklist blocked me

#56

Post by sprinkly-dust »

jeffbee wrote: post #40
mindslight wrote: post #27

"I never thought the leopards would eat MY face," sobs dude who contributed to the leopard-owned face eating industry. There has never been a good argument for attempting to filter email addresses based on domain. Check address syntax on interactive forms purely to help users (did they fat finger something). Whatever well-formed address you've got, fire off emails and if they can receive them then it's a legit addres…

Yes, and "well-formed" consists entirely of text on both sides of an @. Do no further validation.

A couple hundred lines of regex for a full email validation might disagree with you there.

Re: My burner email blocklist blocked me

#57

Post by cam_l »

rz2k wrote: post #37
Normal_gaussian wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is genuinely hilarious. Are you able to elaborate? Which banks? Which B2B? There is probably a shared product stack here that is making some hilariously poor decisions.

I couldn’t figure out why US Bank business card applications using a sole proprietorship EIN kept disappearing into a black hole or being denied. Eventually after a few phone calls they complained about the email address. The other was ferguson.com, so that I could order specialized furnace parts and larger diameter plumbing fittings than I could order from Home Depot. I don’t remember the details, but I think the Fe…

Not only that, I used to use businessname@mydomain.com for setting up aliases to interact with different businesses. On more than a few occasions I had some very confusing back and forth until realising the issue, when they asked which department I was from.

When they saw their own business name in the email address they just straight up assume I am part of their company. No wonder phishing works.

Re: My burner email blocklist blocked me

#58

Post by teddyh »

john_strinlai wrote: post #18
teddyh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you implying that plus addresses are part of RFC 2822? Because they aren’t. AFAIK, no RFC documents specify the plus address convention. The RFCs merely specify that, in an email address, whatever is to the left of the @ sign is to be interpreted by the receiving system, and nobody else should make any assumptions about any of it, and certainly never alter it. And also that the + character is one of the many perm…

its talked about in a proposed standard, at least. https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5233/

“Talked about” is exactly correct. That RFC describes it as an existing practice and describes one common use where the + sign is used. Which is correct. But this is all completely independent of the email protocols and the RFCs which define them. This specific RFC is about how to handle email filtering where you want to take such an extra “detail” string into account, if such a string is present and can be parsed out of an email message, once it has been recieved. Note that this RFC does not describe the + sign convention as the only one – it shows two other possible syntaxes.
Post reply on HN