Please use a personal email. My email is ‘mail’ @ ‘my actual name’. It does not get more personal than that

But you can’t use emails starting with mail@, admin@, support@, info@, main@, etc.

Instead they advised me (3 times) to create a personal email on a service like Yahoo, Outlook, Gmail, Orange, etc

  • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    7 months ago

    Eh, honestly I think blocking plus addressing as a workaround to block people from using multiple identities on the site is very weak argument and ignores completely the reason plus addeesses are being used in the first place, tagging.

    And the addition of “-” just tells they don’t really know what they’re doing, considering it’s not only valid but also very common symbol in email addresses

    • neatchee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      I don’t think the reason they’re being used is relevant to their problem though. “Think like an attacker” wins the day here: as an attacker, I don’t care what it’s meant for, only how I can use it to my advantage. If it’s something they observed as a problem, I understand why they would want to stop it.

      As for “-”, yeah, I don’t have a particularly good explanation for that one except the assumption that it’s something similar to + addressing on a different service.

      • bloor@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        7 months ago

        “-” is the default delimiter in qmail. I administer a system, where both + and - are valid recipient delimiters for historic reasons and we can’t really get rid of it.

        Believe me, it has caused all kinds of problems, where we have to go deep into the finer differences between aliases and virtual aliases and transport maps in postfix to route mails correctly. Especially since we have a lot of Mailinglists with - as a valid character in them.

        So to summarize: the assumption by changeorg is valid, however the execution seems rather flawed.

        • neatchee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          7 months ago

          Good info! Sounds like a nightmare :x

          Yeah, I can’t say their solution is the most elegant but it certainly makes a kind of sense when their criteria for success is “maximize participation while satisfying ‘uniqueness’ critics”