4 ms·

I relate to this. I also stopped hosting my own mail server for this exact reason. However I do think it’s a case of damned if you do damned if you don’t. As a

I relate to this. I also stopped hosting my own mail server for this exact reason. However I do think it’s a case of damned if you do damned if you don’t. As a consumer of big tech email I become equally frustrated when spam makes it past the filter and I expect them to do more. If it’s easy for the average person to setup a mail sever with high reputation then it’s easy for spammers to do the same. I can’t think of a great way to manage this at scale for the average person using a $5 a month Digital Ocean VPS sending < 10 emails a month. One thing I have noticed is that there’s still a load of large organisations failing to implement basic deliverability best practices like SPF records. These organisations have themselves to blame.

lolinder 4y ago
The paradox here is the same one patio11 discussed in "The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero", on the front page yesterday [0]. The more non-tech people have an email address, the more we have to prevent fraudulent email, and the harder it becomes to run your own email address. The original email users were much more savvy and needed less protecting against fraud. Now my grandma has an email, and if we're not careful she ends up on the phone with "Microsoft customer support" giving them full access to her computer. Spam filters aren't just a question of irritation anymore, people's life savings are at risk. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32701913 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32701913
- gpapilion 4y ago
  I actually would rephrase it as there weren’t enough users with money to make using email a worthwhile scam medium. Email is low trust and almost any user is susceptible to being scammed, because there aren’t good trust markers in emails, and companies use it in ways that make it indistinguishable from spam.
  - lolinder 4y ago
    I think both are true. The kinds of scams my grandparents (and even parents) fall for are trivially recognizable as scams to me. It takes more work to defraud someone who knows more about the way thing are supposed to work. But yes, it's definitely still possible for anyone to fall for more sophisticated scams, and there being more money to be had is a huge part of it. Either way the effect is the same: more protection is necessary than was before.

lolinder 4y ago

The paradox here is the same one patio11 discussed in "The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero", on the front page yesterday [0]. The more non-tech people have an email address, the more we have to prevent fraudulent email, and the harder it becomes to run your own email address. The original email users were much more savvy and needed less protecting against fraud. Now my grandma has an email, and if we're not careful she ends up on the phone with "Microsoft customer support" giving them full access to her computer. Spam filters aren't just a question of irritation anymore, people's life savings are at risk. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32701913 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32701913

gpapilion 4y ago
I actually would rephrase it as there weren’t enough users with money to make using email a worthwhile scam medium. Email is low trust and almost any user is susceptible to being scammed, because there aren’t good trust markers in emails, and companies use it in ways that make it indistinguishable from spam.
- lolinder 4y ago
  I think both are true. The kinds of scams my grandparents (and even parents) fall for are trivially recognizable as scams to me. It takes more work to defraud someone who knows more about the way thing are supposed to work. But yes, it's definitely still possible for anyone to fall for more sophisticated scams, and there being more money to be had is a huge part of it. Either way the effect is the same: more protection is necessary than was before.