4 ms·
In theory I agree. In practice I strongly disagree. As soon as I hit more than maybe 3 email addresses it became a burden to maintain and I totally regret it.
by haroldegibbons 6y ago
In theory I agree. In practice I strongly disagree. As soon as I hit more than maybe 3 email addresses it became a burden to maintain and I totally regret it.
I could do <servicename>@example.com to make things easier but this is less secure than <random>@example.com
- c22 6y agoI find that <servicename> is actually adequate. Your primary adversaries are all automated and the technique is not so widely used to date as to be accounted for by the bots at large. I guess for that extra edge of security you could do it in pig latin.
- crossroadsguy 6y agoGetting the mail isn't the problem. Sometimes I have to reply to those company and especially in a Mail client setup it becomes difficult to reply from <company-name>@mydomain.tld and I often end up replying from <my-first-name>@mydomain.tld and they have my main email as well. Unless of course I setup a "reply-from" for each of these <company-name> emails I used.
- zeveb 6y ago> Sometimes I have to reply to those company and especially in a Mail client setup it becomes difficult to reply from <company-name>@mydomain.tld This was very easy with Unix mail clients twenty years ago — what is wrong with Mail that it doesn't support this functionality?