3 ms·
Solution to this is to use a masked email or at the very least add a `+` tag so you can block it easily or know who's the source of the junk mail. Fastmail off
by frfl 3y ago
Solution to this is to use a masked email or at the very least add a `+` tag so you can block it easily or know who's the source of the junk mail.
Fastmail offers this feature, and I think 1password might.
The `+` tag should be possible with any provider, `me+hn@example.com`
Of course now you have to have a way to keep track of what email you gave to what company. I usually do `firstname_company/website@` to make it easier to remember.
- jjulius 3y agoThat's not really a viable solution for the average, not-so-tech-savvy folk, though. Edit: Hit me with the downvotes, I don't mind, but I also enjoy hearing about why my perspective might be wrong. From where I sit, I can imagine that plenty of people annoyed by these kinds of email harvesting patterns also don't know enough to employ the kind of method described here. I feel like that's a solution, but not one that can be prescribed to the average joe.
- reaperducer 3y agoThat's not really a viable solution for the average, not-so-tech-savvy folk, though. Not at this moment, but we're getting close More and more often, Safari offers to fill in an anonymized email address for me when I fill out a form. It's not detected and offered 100% off the time, but is improving. Even my wife has started using it, and she is not a techie.
- Sebb767 3y ago> That's not really a viable solution for the average, not-so-tech-savvy folk, though. You can explain this feature of gmail/fastmail to a reasonably technical person in 5 minutes, where 'reasonably technical' means that the person understands the concept of mail folders. Sure, it might not work that easy for your grandma, but I'm reasonably certain that most people in the developed under 40 fall in that category.
- gruez 3y agoIsn't it trivial for websites to strip out the +? I feel like between this, and the various sites that don't support + in email addresses for whatever reason, this trick isn't worth doing.
- janalsncm 3y agoYes, and any spammer will do this anyways. This is the digital equivalent of spelling your name backwards for anonymity. I don’t know why people still suggest it.
- Sebb767 3y agoIt still works, in my experience. Also, stripping out the plus is risky for sites, as it might actually be a part of the address, especially if it's not @gmail.com. You can get a tad fancier and automatically mark mails without + as spam (only works for new addresses, obviously) or use a dash as separator (if your mail provider supports it). This won't block a targeted attack, yes, but it's usually sufficient to filter a lot of low quality spam and to identify companies that sell or leak your data.
- gruez 3y ago>Also, stripping out the plus is risky for sites, as it might actually be a part of the address, especially if it's not @gmail.com. Sure, stripping out everything after the + isn't specified in the RFCs, but I know of zero public email providers that allow + in email address AND treats them as separate address (eg. foo+bar@example.com is a different account than foo+baz@example.com). >You can get a tad fancier and automatically mark mails without + as spam (only works for new addresses, obviously) Sites that reject + in email address preclude you from doing that.
- zikduruqe 3y agothe '+' is valid according to RFC822 from 1982. It's not purely per service provider. http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc822.html
- janalsncm 3y agoEmail alias is the only reliable way. If I was writing an email spam service the first thing I would do is strip off everything after the plus sign.