661–670 of 720 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So will you fix OP's problem then, prlambert?
If you downvote, please reply and explain your position. I simply asked if this Gmail PM is going to fix the problem with Gmail in the comments about that problem. So who is upset with my comment and WHY.
Google has no incentive to fix these kinds of problems. It's big enough that when someone complains that a message sent wasn't received, the intended recipient will say, "I never have problems with my Gmail account. It must be you." And the sender has to switch to Gmail to reliably communicate with the outside world. I wish this was just paranoia, but we've seen multiple discussions on HN about Google programs and po…
I'm one of the PMs for Gmail and hang around HN quite a bit. This is my personal take, not an official reply. It's simply not true we have no incentive to fix this. Here are a few: Firstly, Gmail's success is entirely predicated on the health of the global email ecosystem. Gmail does not, inherently, have any network effects (unlike FB, messengers, any other comms tool of Gmail's scale). Email itself, of course has a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The right response to this problem - for gmail users - would be to switch to a different email provider. After all, if you are not receiving important mails because Google decides to block them for inexplicable reasons, you are getting an inferior, faulty service. (For me gmail is inferior regardless as my privacy is violated)
Can you suggest free email provider with similar level of service which allows to use your own domain?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair comment. But that issue is pretty simple: there is no good reason for them to fail to deliver email under any circumstances. (This has happened to me too -- someone tried to email my gmail account and gmail completely refused to deliver it. It was pretty embarrassing.) Messages they think you won't want to receive are what the spam folder is for .
> there is no good reason for them to fail to deliver email under any circumstances Yes there is. They don't want to carry traffic from anybody from the major email blacklists. If a mail server is on a real, very transparently-managed blacklist, no large provider should be accepting their smtp traffic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a problem with ML approaches, right? Instead of water boiling at "100C" it boils at "99.98C +- 0.04C". Normally this is ok, but sometimes it isn't!
Denver is just a small minority of the US and we just can't please everyone. (afaik in denver water boils at 95C)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there are 50,000 people and 50,000 people experience problems, that's bad. If there are 5 million people and 50,000 experience problems, that's fine? Isaac Asimov's comments about world population increase involved something about this; the more people there are, the more each individual is dehumanised and rendered irrelevant (my paraphrasing).
No I don't think it's fine at all. I think Google, twatter, Facebook, et al don't care because 50 people and who they represent don't matter to them compared to the money they make. When all rounded up it isn't even a single penny on the balance sheet. The owners of these businesses literally never even know from the their only view into the companies. I have no idea why I'm being downvoted on this. Hackers can't do…
Google has no incentive to fix these kinds of problems. It's big enough that when someone complains that a message sent wasn't received, the intended recipient will say, "I never have problems with my Gmail account. It must be you." And the sender has to switch to Gmail to reliably communicate with the outside world. I wish this was just paranoia, but we've seen multiple discussions on HN about Google programs and po…
Even worse, they have incentive to create these problems.
Gsuite is extremely profitable for them, I am sure. Charging $5/user/month for hosted email must make them a pretty penny.
I would guess that no gsuite sent emails are ever blocked with this suspicious message 550 error.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When a family member had a phone stolen not long ago, the only major functionality on it that they couldn't quickly and securely disable was the Google stuff. The procedures for doing so seemed to be unnecessarily complicated and difficult to find when starting, ironically, from a Google search on another device. Worse, the security policies seemed to be fundamentally flawed, because they kept insisting on some form…
> Worse, the security policies seemed to be fundamentally flawed, because they kept insisting on some form of authentication based on a trusted device when the purpose of the transaction was to notify them that the trusted device had been stolen. Are you suggesting any random person without any authentication proof to be able to just sign people out of their devices ? That would be a broken security.
Google has no incentive to fix these kinds of problems. It's big enough that when someone complains that a message sent wasn't received, the intended recipient will say, "I never have problems with my Gmail account. It must be you." And the sender has to switch to Gmail to reliably communicate with the outside world. I wish this was just paranoia, but we've seen multiple discussions on HN about Google programs and po…
I'm one of the PMs for Gmail and hang around HN quite a bit. This is my personal take, not an official reply. It's simply not true we have no incentive to fix this. Here are a few: Firstly, Gmail's success is entirely predicated on the health of the global email ecosystem. Gmail does not, inherently, have any network effects (unlike FB, messengers, any other comms tool of Gmail's scale). Email itself, of course has a…
Don't you see? This post on HN means you have created the CLOSED unhealthy ecosystem. You built what you just spoke against when you shut out email from small providers. Shame on you for speaking idealically and not confronting the reality of the situation.