5 ms·

> The assholes sent 300 people linkedin connection requests through my own personal gmail account. With zero warning whatsoever. The fact that they requested a

> The assholes sent 300 people linkedin connection requests through my own personal gmail account. With zero warning whatsoever. The fact that they requested access to your email account should have been warning enough.

rnovak 12y ago
I can't understand why anyone would give any entity access to their email, it's really baffling. I personally see LinkedIn as horrible, and deleted my account long ago. They don't let you restrict who can view your profile, and they allow people to remain anonymous. For anyone who cares about Privacy, this should be a huge no-no.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  Agreed, it's incredible, and utterly dumbfounding, that people would simply turn over access to their email like that. The only explanation I can imagine is that other (younger?) people just don't take email as seriously.
  - _almosnow 12y ago
    Yeah right, so OP was asking for it, right?
    - CamperBob2 12y ago
      I wouldn't say that (and didn't.)
- fsloth 12y ago
  I agree, the email access thing is crazy. Both from a feature side and that someone would agree on it. However, I would claim the fully visible profile is actually a feature. LinkdedIn is not Facebook. LinkedIn is a professional index, like the yellow pages, with the difference that the minimum inclusion is free.
  - BorisMelnik 12y ago
    > LinkdedIn is not Facebook. LinkedIn is a professional index, like the yellow pages, with the exception that LI is a social network, where the goal is to interact, rate, and comment on different scenarios
    - din-9 12y ago
      I would argue that it is a professional index dressed up for non-recruiters as a social network.
    - fsloth 12y ago
      I thought LinkedIn has always marketed itself as a professional networking service and thus perceived it as public area open to corporate scrutiny... it's not healthy to mix "social" with "professional" in situtations dealing with corporate employers.
- nl 12y ago
  Wait. You have deleted your account and clearly don't find LinkedIn useful. Are you really surprised that you don't understand why people who do find LinkedIn useful (and there are large numbers) would use it the way they do?
betenoire 12y ago
This type of wisdom only comes with being burnt and cynical. We shouldn't require that of our users.
- kd0amg 12y ago
  Does it? Nobody considers it "cynical" to not give the pizza guy the key to your house.
  - Maarten88 12y ago
    The pizza boy doesn't ask for your home keys it EVERY TIME he brings you a pizza. Yet LinkedIn goes far beyond that. LinkedIn is clearly engaging in "dark ui patterns", hoping to trick you into giving those keys (and using them too!) when you are not mindfull.
jackmaney 12y ago
Yeah, I'm always weary of allowing any app to send emails on my behalf, unless it's something I've put together myself (eg email alerts for internal stuff breaking, etc).
JoergR 12y ago
Really, that should have been warning enough that LinkedIn will send 300 mails instead of those they selected? Or are you just being a smug jerk?
TylerJay 12y ago
Isn't it more likely that they just sent the emails themselves but used his email as the "Reply To" address? A lot of software systems (SalesForce, Hubspot, etc.) do that too.
- eridius 12y ago
  That would instantly get flagged as spam by virtually everybody if SPF is enabled on his domain. And yes, gmail.com seems to have SPF enabled.
  - vsl 12y ago
    That would only be true for only some recipients (by far not "everybody") only if Google's SPF record forbade other SMTP servers with -all. It doesn't, it uses ~all soft-fail. Why? Precisely because of this: there are lots of perfectly legitimate situations when a third party sends email on your behalf. Moreover, if LinkedIn signs their outgoing emails with DKIM, that would be a positive signal for a spam filter (and e.g. Gmail would show such mail as "sent via LinkedIn" or something to that effect).
    - eridius 12y ago
      Sounds like you know more about this than I do. I will defer to your greater knowledge. Although "there are lots of perfectly legitimate situations when a third party sends email on your behalf" strikes me as being rather wrong. I cannot think of a single reason why anyone else should be sending email that claims to be coming from my email address. Sending email that lists me as a reply-to, sure. But as the sender? Not a chance.
      - mattmanser 12y ago
        It's common in enterprise products where the user's first action is in a non-email. Like I've uploaded version 1 of the plans, added some notes and the system needs to send out an email to everyone, I did the action, it's coming from me, not the system. There's a reason it's part of the spec.

rnovak 12y ago

I can't understand why anyone would give any entity access to their email, it's really baffling. I personally see LinkedIn as horrible, and deleted my account long ago. They don't let you restrict who can view your profile, and they allow people to remain anonymous. For anyone who cares about Privacy, this should be a huge no-no.

CamperBob2 12y ago
Agreed, it's incredible, and utterly dumbfounding, that people would simply turn over access to their email like that. The only explanation I can imagine is that other (younger?) people just don't take email as seriously.
- _almosnow 12y ago
  Yeah right, so OP was asking for it, right?
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    I wouldn't say that (and didn't.)
fsloth 12y ago
I agree, the email access thing is crazy. Both from a feature side and that someone would agree on it. However, I would claim the fully visible profile is actually a feature. LinkdedIn is not Facebook. LinkedIn is a professional index, like the yellow pages, with the difference that the minimum inclusion is free.
- BorisMelnik 12y ago
  > LinkdedIn is not Facebook. LinkedIn is a professional index, like the yellow pages, with the exception that LI is a social network, where the goal is to interact, rate, and comment on different scenarios
  - din-9 12y ago
    I would argue that it is a professional index dressed up for non-recruiters as a social network.
  - fsloth 12y ago
    I thought LinkedIn has always marketed itself as a professional networking service and thus perceived it as public area open to corporate scrutiny... it's not healthy to mix "social" with "professional" in situtations dealing with corporate employers.
nl 12y ago
Wait. You have deleted your account and clearly don't find LinkedIn useful. Are you really surprised that you don't understand why people who do find LinkedIn useful (and there are large numbers) would use it the way they do?

betenoire 12y ago

This type of wisdom only comes with being burnt and cynical. We shouldn't require that of our users.

kd0amg 12y ago
Does it? Nobody considers it "cynical" to not give the pizza guy the key to your house.
- Maarten88 12y ago
  The pizza boy doesn't ask for your home keys it EVERY TIME he brings you a pizza. Yet LinkedIn goes far beyond that. LinkedIn is clearly engaging in "dark ui patterns", hoping to trick you into giving those keys (and using them too!) when you are not mindfull.

jackmaney 12y ago

Yeah, I'm always weary of allowing any app to send emails on my behalf, unless it's something I've put together myself (eg email alerts for internal stuff breaking, etc).

JoergR 12y ago

Really, that should have been warning enough that LinkedIn will send 300 mails instead of those they selected? Or are you just being a smug jerk?

TylerJay 12y ago

Isn't it more likely that they just sent the emails themselves but used his email as the "Reply To" address? A lot of software systems (SalesForce, Hubspot, etc.) do that too.

eridius 12y ago
That would instantly get flagged as spam by virtually everybody if SPF is enabled on his domain. And yes, gmail.com seems to have SPF enabled.
- vsl 12y ago
  That would only be true for only some recipients (by far not "everybody") only if Google's SPF record forbade other SMTP servers with -all. It doesn't, it uses ~all soft-fail. Why? Precisely because of this: there are lots of perfectly legitimate situations when a third party sends email on your behalf. Moreover, if LinkedIn signs their outgoing emails with DKIM, that would be a positive signal for a spam filter (and e.g. Gmail would show such mail as "sent via LinkedIn" or something to that effect).
  - eridius 12y ago
    Sounds like you know more about this than I do. I will defer to your greater knowledge. Although "there are lots of perfectly legitimate situations when a third party sends email on your behalf" strikes me as being rather wrong. I cannot think of a single reason why anyone else should be sending email that claims to be coming from my email address. Sending email that lists me as a reply-to, sure. But as the sender? Not a chance.
    - mattmanser 12y ago
      It's common in enterprise products where the user's first action is in a non-email. Like I've uploaded version 1 of the plans, added some notes and the system needs to send out an email to everyone, I did the action, it's coming from me, not the system. There's a reason it's part of the spec.