4 ms·

The fact that this so called developer doesn't understand the difference between a sender and a receiver of email makes me think there are other things in the C

The fact that this so called developer doesn't understand the difference between a sender and a receiver of email makes me think there are other things in the CV that caused them to not be hired.

jszymborski 7y ago
Understanding Gmail's spam/quarantine policies (which was both the sender/receiver here) is not really relevant to engineering roles, unless maybe you're on the marketing team.
- knorker 7y ago
  Seeing a system and getting somewhat of an accurate understanding of how the parts work is, though. And it's not like "email" is some esoteric thing he's only now come into contact with. For example, don't say "GMail". This is about email. To misquote Babbage: "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a conclusion". This conclusion screams of not being able to understand the logical effect of a known fact. I wouldn't want this person troubleshooting anything, for example. And I didn't see many comments about the rest of his statements. It's a mess. He seems somewhat angry at GMail's suggestions (this would be on the sender side) because sometimes he doesn't want to say what GMail suggests. Again… confusion of ideas. Actually, now that I think about it I'm seriously suspecting this was written by a bot. More articles than you'd expect are written by bots, and this is close enough to making sense (on multiple points), but without an actual logical point, that it's a possibility.
  - jszymborski 7y ago
    Gmail is decreasingly an email client an increasingly a protocol. Gmail-to-gmail messages get treated quite differently, and ultimately OPs conclusion that gmail intercepted their email because it determined that CVs are suspicious is correct. I would add that I think it's a bit fickle and unkind for internet strangers to pass judgement on a person's ability to do their job based on a post like this. This individual did not ask for our opinion on their ability to do a job, but instead gave (a useful) warning about how the gmail client handles CVs.
    - knorker 7y ago
      > This individual [...] gave (a useful) warning about how the gmail client handles CVs. That's one way to see it. To me it was about as coherent and thought through as someone yelling and on the corner about 5G towers causing coronavirus.
paypalcust83 7y ago
Yup, that's a sensible conclusion. The article could be an expression of sour grapes bikeshedding.

The fact that this so called developer doesn't understand the difference between a sender and a receiver of email makes me think there are other things in the CV that caused them to not be hired.

jszymborski 7y ago

Understanding Gmail's spam/quarantine policies (which was both the sender/receiver here) is not really relevant to engineering roles, unless maybe you're on the marketing team.

knorker 7y ago
Seeing a system and getting somewhat of an accurate understanding of how the parts work is, though. And it's not like "email" is some esoteric thing he's only now come into contact with. For example, don't say "GMail". This is about email. To misquote Babbage: "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a conclusion". This conclusion screams of not being able to understand the logical effect of a known fact. I wouldn't want this person troubleshooting anything, for example. And I didn't see many comments about the rest of his statements. It's a mess. He seems somewhat angry at GMail's suggestions (this would be on the sender side) because sometimes he doesn't want to say what GMail suggests. Again… confusion of ideas. Actually, now that I think about it I'm seriously suspecting this was written by a bot. More articles than you'd expect are written by bots, and this is close enough to making sense (on multiple points), but without an actual logical point, that it's a possibility.
- jszymborski 7y ago
  Gmail is decreasingly an email client an increasingly a protocol. Gmail-to-gmail messages get treated quite differently, and ultimately OPs conclusion that gmail intercepted their email because it determined that CVs are suspicious is correct. I would add that I think it's a bit fickle and unkind for internet strangers to pass judgement on a person's ability to do their job based on a post like this. This individual did not ask for our opinion on their ability to do a job, but instead gave (a useful) warning about how the gmail client handles CVs.
  - knorker 7y ago
    > This individual [...] gave (a useful) warning about how the gmail client handles CVs. That's one way to see it. To me it was about as coherent and thought through as someone yelling and on the corner about 5G towers causing coronavirus.

paypalcust83 7y ago

Yup, that's a sensible conclusion. The article could be an expression of sour grapes bikeshedding.