3 ms·

Unless the user’s e-mail was controlled by their counter-party, what folder the message ended up in seems to be irrelevant to me. The user is the one who select

by nickff 7mo ago

Unless the user’s e-mail was controlled by their counter-party, what folder the message ended up in seems to be irrelevant to me. The user is the one who selected the e-mail inbox service provider, and has some degree of control over message categorization.

noirscape 7mo ago
That does sound like there's an exploitable element there isn't it? Statistically speaking, most people use one of the biggest email providers, which use their own models to detect spam (or even quietly drop messages). If you're doing an unpopular TOS change, why not set the mail up to still be RFC compliant but in such a way where the mail isn't going to be allowed through by any of the providers. Then you can just claim the problem is userside. For example, the Message-ID header is technically not required (SHOULD rather than MUST), but as a spam detection measure, Gmail just drops the message entirely for workspace domains: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46989217 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46989217
- hrimfaxi 7mo ago
  Okay and if you did that only for that message your intent would be really easy to prove.
- dataflow 7mo ago
  The exploitability goes both ways, I think. Users can also mark similar emails as spam to keep such emails out of their inboxes. Not sure how one could deal with that.
dataflow 7mo ago
> Unless the user’s e-mail was controlled by their counter-party, what folder the message ended up in seems to be irrelevant to me. No, you're even harsher than the court. The court explicitly looked at common practices by consumers, not just who-picked-what or who-controlled-what: >> Because Tile should have known that at least some of its users do not closely monitor email, and Tile should have furnished additional notices, this factor weighs against finding inquiry notice. The court explicitly said Tile was responsible for making sure people read what it sends, and you're disagreeing with it! Clearly that's relevant! The court somehow just failed to look at the spam classification question at all, which is baffling. They could've looked at the spam classification and said something similar here, yet they didn't. Instead they ruled as if it's the same situation as one where 100% of the problem is due to the user's negligence, which it clearly isn't.

by nickff 7mo ago

noirscape 7mo ago

That does sound like there's an exploitable element there isn't it? Statistically speaking, most people use one of the biggest email providers, which use their own models to detect spam (or even quietly drop messages). If you're doing an unpopular TOS change, why not set the mail up to still be RFC compliant but in such a way where the mail isn't going to be allowed through by any of the providers. Then you can just claim the problem is userside. For example, the Message-ID header is technically not required (SHOULD rather than MUST), but as a spam detection measure, Gmail just drops the message entirely for workspace domains: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46989217 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46989217

hrimfaxi 7mo ago
Okay and if you did that only for that message your intent would be really easy to prove.
dataflow 7mo ago
The exploitability goes both ways, I think. Users can also mark similar emails as spam to keep such emails out of their inboxes. Not sure how one could deal with that.

dataflow 7mo ago

> Unless the user’s e-mail was controlled by their counter-party, what folder the message ended up in seems to be irrelevant to me. No, you're even harsher than the court. The court explicitly looked at common practices by consumers, not just who-picked-what or who-controlled-what: >> Because Tile should have known that at least some of its users do not closely monitor email, and Tile should have furnished additional notices, this factor weighs against finding inquiry notice. The court explicitly said Tile was responsible for making sure people read what it sends, and you're disagreeing with it! Clearly that's relevant! The court somehow just failed to look at the spam classification question at all, which is baffling. They could've looked at the spam classification and said something similar here, yet they didn't. Instead they ruled as if it's the same situation as one where 100% of the problem is due to the user's negligence, which it clearly isn't.