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

FWD:Everyone

fwdeveryone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 143 posts

Re: FWD:Everyone

#71

Post by yellowapple »

Alex3917 wrote: post #55
mirimir wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, and so don't know how libel and slander apply to the deceased. I can imagine how estates might have claims. But ??? And even so, there are all the non-deceased correspondents. I had no clue that email protocols "implicitly grants the recipient a copyright". What are cites for that? Neither https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322 nor https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5598 includes "coptright" except in the "Copyright…

The protocols don’t talk about copyright explicitly, but they talk about replying and forwarding. Both of those behaviors are only legal if there is an implicit grant of copyright to the recipient.

IANAL, but...

Replying is always legal (copyright-wise, at least, notwithstanding other laws that might prohibit it for some other reason, e.g. CANSPAM), so long as your reply does not include my original message or a portion thereof (aside from parts that I didn't really author in a meaningful way, e.g. email headers).

Replying with quotes, forwarding, or sending a paraphrased/summarized equivalent to my email may or may not be automatically legal depending on your jurisdiction's laws around fair use. Unless you know that it falls under fair use, it's almost certainly safer to treat it as illegal without prior authorization.

Re: FWD:Everyone

#73

Post by ifdefdebug »

yellowapple wrote: post #64
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The default must be requiring explicit permission from all participants If you send me an e-mail, absent an NDA, I generally have permission to disclose it to third parties. If FWD:Everyone required permission from all participants, they would simply fall prey to FWD:Everyone2 who didn't.

"If you send me an e-mail, absent an NDA, I generally have permission to disclose it to third parties." Permission from whom? Certainly not from me.

I am surprised about this point of view. When I send mail to someone, I do it in the belief the recipient can discuss it with whomever they want, even in public. Its their mail not mine. Also helps people behave nicely over mail if this pov holds true.

Re: FWD:Everyone

#74

Post by apk-d »

foo101 wrote: post #68
Alex3917 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why not just have an inbound address? We'd love to! Unfortunately going from just the last email in the thread to being able to reconstruct the entire thread would be exceedingly difficult. Also, being able to use DKIM / SPF / DMARC / ARC to ensure the authenticity of conversations is very important to us. If you get a permission request from our site, we want you to be 100% confident that what you see when you pre…

> The whole magic of the site is being able to have the experience of looking over other people's shoulders into their inbox, and seeing how they actually talk with one another when they're not on stage. I am having a hard time understanding if this is written sincerely or as satire. I hope you are being humorous here because if this is indeed true, it does not look like something I would appreciate. I really don't w…

I feel like everyone here is misinterpreting what the author meant. The site doesn't publish your messages without consent. In fact, from their FAQ:

> When uploading a thread as an individual, we email a permission request to each non-anonymized person who contributed at least one message to conversation. A thread will only go live if there is unanimous consent. This means that if even one person hits 'Decline' or doesn't respond to the permission request, the thread will remain private.

Re: FWD:Everyone

#75

Post by oblio »

jonathankoren wrote: post #15
Alex3917 wrote: post #3

Thanks for submitting this, I was surprised to load HN and see it here. I've been meaning to do a proper update on what we've been up to for a while, but basically things that we've done since launching: - 99%+ of non-commercial email threads now parse correctly, better than Gmail in most cases. E.g. check out the inline reply parsing here: https://www.fwdeveryone.com/t/Gb8CYKvGS6uFSXdb_hwiTA/blog-po... - We now supp…

> - You can now anonymize any message contributor. [...] > - Permission requests are becoming optional, at least for now. Previously we required permission for all non-anonymized message contributors, now there will be an option to publish stuff immediately and let people anonymize themselves later if they want. If this is excessively abused we'll re-evaluate this, but we've tried to build things to incentivize good…

> If you want to get legal about it, as the author, the copyright is mine, not the person I send it to.

Are you sure about this? I doubt that communication can be copyrighted. Once you sent me your email, it's mine, not yours.

Otherwise email forwarding in general is completely illegal.

Re: FWD:Everyone

#76

Post by owens99 »

craftyguy wrote: post #7
owens99 wrote: post #4

Very cool product! Will follow this and I hope it is successful.

I sure hope they aren't. This is terrifying, from a privacy perspective.

True, but only because it is OAuth. I like the overall concept if I don't have to share access to my inbox. Better if it was via forwarding to a specific address.

Re: FWD:Everyone

#77

Post by oblio »

ryan-allen wrote: post #50
forbes wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, did you call a client a Giraffe or something?

It was something like 'Giraffe', but rhymes with 'punt'.

Lesson I learned early in my career, luckily not on my own: never write something that you really don't want someone to see, especially bosses and clients and especially swearing.

Mails are replied to, mails are forwarded, long chains of emails happen, your stuff gets out.

A colleague at one of my first work places made fun of a client. 10-20 replies and forwards later, his mail was sent to a client. Luckily I think his message was buried too deep in the resulting mail and the client didn't see it.

I did, though, as did several people from my team. We didn't say anything but we all learned a lesson that day :)

Re: FWD:Everyone

#78

Post by wongarsu »

mychael wrote: post #51

It blows my mind that people are having "Group Chat" conversations like that via Email. Have they never heard of WhatsApp?

Email is much better for longer, well thought out replies and keeping track of multiple threads of conversation, each of which may have no activity for days at a time. Whatsapp is fairly limited to quick, short replies (mostly because of interface restrictions). Even chat-like email threads have much longer messages interspersed than what you would see on WhatsApp. Email also has much better tools for finding old messages than WhatsApp

Re: FWD:Everyone

#79

Post by michaelt »

ifdefdebug wrote: post #73
yellowapple wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you send me an e-mail, absent an NDA, I generally have permission to disclose it to third parties." Permission from whom? Certainly not from me.

I am surprised about this point of view. When I send mail to someone, I do it in the belief the recipient can discuss it with whomever they want, even in public. Its their mail not mine. Also helps people behave nicely over mail if this pov holds true.

Guys, this is obviously situation-dependent.

If I e-mail a support engineer who is helping a customer with a problem, I expect they may tell the customer everything I say.

If I e-mail a colleague saying I'm worried our new product isn't up to our usual quality standards, I expect them to share that with other insiders but not risk embarrassing the company by releasing it publicly.

If I e-mail HR asking if our medical insurance covers syphilis, I expect them to keep that private even from other insiders :)

Re: FWD:Everyone

#80

Post by [deleted] »

ifdefdebug wrote: post #73
yellowapple wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you send me an e-mail, absent an NDA, I generally have permission to disclose it to third parties." Permission from whom? Certainly not from me.

I am surprised about this point of view. When I send mail to someone, I do it in the belief the recipient can discuss it with whomever they want, even in public. Its their mail not mine. Also helps people behave nicely over mail if this pov holds true.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN