jivings

12 ms·

91.
Show HN: Klokki – Rule-based automatic time-tracking for Mac(klokki.com)
9 points by jivings 7y ago|3 comments
92.
by jivings 7y ago
There are a few products out there trying to fix Gmail in the same way. KanbanMail ( https://kanbanmail.app/ ) and Drag ( https://www.dragapp.com/ ) spring to mind. Both give this same kind of task separation.
93.
by jivings 8y ago
We've made some significant improvements since then (including adding Outlook support), but I understand it's probably mostly duplicate info yes.
94.
by jivings 8y ago
You're very welcome!
95.
Leave Me Alone – Unsubscription service for Gmail and Outlook(blog.squarecat.io)
17 points by jivings 8y ago|9 comments
96.
by jivings 8y ago
$1127 MRR ( https://simpleanalytics.io/open )
97.
by jivings 8y ago
Two-person but close enough - We're building Leave Me Alone ( https://leavemealone.xyz ), an app that helps you unsubscribe from spammy mailing lists. Currently at ~$500/month (full stats are public here https:/&#x
98.
Google's plan to avoid apps slurping Gmail inboxes: Charge devs for audits(theregister.co.uk)
4 points by jivings 8y ago|0 comments
99.
by jivings 8y ago
Where did you get that quote from? We don't exclude the spam folder.
100.
by jivings 8y ago
As of this year with apps that access the Gmail API it is an official audit by an authorised third party assessor. More info here: https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/g-suite/elevating-use...
101.
by jivings 8y ago
We're already required to perform an audit by Google every 12 months (I've mentioned the requirements of this below, but it basically amounts to the same thing), would this be acceptable?
102.
by jivings 8y ago
Thanks for the kind words. I think the only way we can make this promise is by doing what we're doing right now and not actually storing any email content. I'm not sure the best way to prove that this is what we're doing, sho
103.
by jivings 8y ago
Something we plan to do is name and shame companies that do this. They're in breach of the CAN-SPAM act and should be punished appropriately.
104.
by jivings 8y ago
Yes, there are a couple of reasons; 1. Like you mention, if you don't receive a subscription in the last 6 months, it's probably not something you're bothered about. 2. Scanning some users inboxes is very bandwidth intensive,
105.
by jivings 8y ago
We hope we wont be judged by the crimes of others. The immoral actions of our competitors is one of the reasons why we started Leave Me Alone and we want to remain a privacy first service. In fact we actually don't store any email cont
106.
by jivings 8y ago
Glad to hear it!
107.
by jivings 8y ago
Yes, we will definitely do this as well.
108.
by jivings 8y ago
That's a really nice idea, and would be easy for us to implement. I love it. I'll add it to our roadmap right now.
109.
by jivings 8y ago
Oh sorry I didn't notice the part of your message where you had a problem. Send me a message through support chat (click your profile image and "get help") and I'll sort you out!
110.
by jivings 8y ago
We have a task on the roadmap that I think will help with this. We want to add a message next to each subscription in your list that says something like "47% of users unsubscribed from this mailing list". This will hopefully give
111.
by jivings 8y ago
No problem! Answering these types of questions and standing behind your idea is as important as a sexy looking website!
112.
by jivings 8y ago
A valid concern for sure! The tokens we store are all encrypted, but you can also revoke them easily on Google's OAuth screens if god forbid we were to have a breach. I believe we can also revoke all tokens by refreshing our own Google
113.
by jivings 8y ago
This depends on how far your trust stretches. As of this year all apps that use the Google Gmail API have to undergo an independent assessment from a security firm to ensure that they are; a) not mishandling data b) not breaching Google&#x2
114.
Show HN: Leave Me Alone – A privacy focused email unsubscription service(leavemealone.xyz)
53 points by jivings 8y ago|47 comments
115.
by jivings 8y ago
What I have found out by talking with the Google verification team is that if the requests are made from the client and not from a server then they do not require audit.
116.
by jivings 8y ago
I've been quoted $22k, an amount that was apparently previously agreed upon with Google.
117.
by jivings 8y ago
This is part of the verification step, and you don't need to get your app verified if you only have one user.
118.
by jivings 8y ago
I've been caught by this change. Google have requested that my app be audited by one of the suggested security firms. The lowest quote I have right now is $22k. We're a bootstrapped business with nowhere near this kind of cash, so
119.
New Google policy creates $15k barrier to building apps using the Gmail API
18 points by jivings 8y ago|0 comments
120.
What does it mean to be an Open Startup?(hackernoon.com)
9 points by jivings 8y ago|0 comments

More ›