8 ms·

The later part refers to the plus addressing, like "han.solo+github@gmail.com", which people use to so that "If they later start receiving spam to that address,

The later part refers to the plus addressing, like "han.solo+github@gmail.com", which people use to so that "If they later start receiving spam to that address, they know the service has leaked or sold their info.". Now the IAB requests that advertisers should normalise such addresses by dropping the part after the plus sign, and therefore effectively stopping users from "tracking" the advertisers.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
This is dangerous as some mail servers could consider plus addresses unique.
- arpa 4y ago
  nobody cares, email, along the majority of the internet as "computers talking protocols", is dead. The absolute majority of email is handled by gmail or microsoft, accounting for >80% of MX servers in the wild by the data i had five years back. I'd imagine the share of the duopoly is even larger today, considering how difficult it is to get into inbox these days.
  - account42 4y ago
    EMail is more alive than any other federated communication protocol on the internet. It is only rivaled by phones and physical mail. Defeatism here helps noone.
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  (Web) developers have gotten lazier and simply don't care anymore. The fact of the matter is that if you don't host your email with one of the big three, some services are probably not working anyway. I'd also like websites to show me things like news and recipes without having them run javascript, but apparently this means I deserve white pages because writing HTML is too much of a hassle for the modern web developer. It's quite sad to see. It's also the reason I'm using somethingunique@domain.tld;, if cyberstalkers start normalising to a domain, they'll only hurt their own business.
  - account42 4y ago
    > I'd also like websites to show me things like news and recipes without having them run javascript, but apparently this means I deserve white pages because writing HTML is too much of a hassle for the modern web developer. Often enough the content is there but just hidden until the JS loads for ... reasons, idk.
- nerdbert 4y ago
  In the linked document they say to only do it with @gmail.com addresses.
gruez 4y ago
>and therefore effectively stopping users from "tracking" the advertisers. I guess that's the nefarious explanation, but there's a more benign one: if you want to correlate user behavior, you need some sort of normalization, otherwise john.doe+apple@example.com and john.doe+amazon@example.com would show up as different "people" and cause match rates to suffer. Sure, getting tracked isn't great, but it's not exactly the hypocrisy rage-bait that the OP is implying.
- marcus0x62 4y ago
  Why would a person want advertisers to correlate their behavior? What’s in it for them?
  - lokedhs 4y ago
    Ostensibly it's so that the user can get more relevant ads. In practice, it's not of course, but that's the answer you'd get if you ask them.
    - nerdponx 4y ago
      Of course that's the goal. The IAB isn't an NSA front. The problem with advertising is not the primary goal, but all the secondary things that can happen.
      - account42 4y ago
        I disagree: The main problem with advertising is with its primary goal, which is manipulting people into excess consumption. There are of course other secondary issues as well, but even without them ads are already a net negative for society.
      - lokedhs 4y ago
        If it's the goal, you'd expect ads to be actually be more relevant and useful to users. They don't, which has been shown in studies. What has been shown is that showing the same things people already bought give people regret which increases total amount of purchases. In other word, the goal is to not to give users a good experiences watching ad's. It is to make them buy more, which is an orthogonal goal.
AstralStorm 4y ago
I suppose we should start using aliases then instead. Ultimately they cannot win this fight.
- henriquez 4y ago
  They can’t win this fight against people like us, but for the rest of people it’s a mess.

paulryanrogers 4y ago

This is dangerous as some mail servers could consider plus addresses unique.

arpa 4y ago
nobody cares, email, along the majority of the internet as "computers talking protocols", is dead. The absolute majority of email is handled by gmail or microsoft, accounting for >80% of MX servers in the wild by the data i had five years back. I'd imagine the share of the duopoly is even larger today, considering how difficult it is to get into inbox these days.
- account42 4y ago
  EMail is more alive than any other federated communication protocol on the internet. It is only rivaled by phones and physical mail. Defeatism here helps noone.
jeroenhd 4y ago
(Web) developers have gotten lazier and simply don't care anymore. The fact of the matter is that if you don't host your email with one of the big three, some services are probably not working anyway. I'd also like websites to show me things like news and recipes without having them run javascript, but apparently this means I deserve white pages because writing HTML is too much of a hassle for the modern web developer. It's quite sad to see. It's also the reason I'm using somethingunique@domain.tld;, if cyberstalkers start normalising to a domain, they'll only hurt their own business.
- account42 4y ago
  > I'd also like websites to show me things like news and recipes without having them run javascript, but apparently this means I deserve white pages because writing HTML is too much of a hassle for the modern web developer. Often enough the content is there but just hidden until the JS loads for ... reasons, idk.
nerdbert 4y ago
In the linked document they say to only do it with @gmail.com addresses.

gruez 4y ago

>and therefore effectively stopping users from "tracking" the advertisers. I guess that's the nefarious explanation, but there's a more benign one: if you want to correlate user behavior, you need some sort of normalization, otherwise john.doe+apple@example.com and john.doe+amazon@example.com would show up as different "people" and cause match rates to suffer. Sure, getting tracked isn't great, but it's not exactly the hypocrisy rage-bait that the OP is implying.

marcus0x62 4y ago
Why would a person want advertisers to correlate their behavior? What’s in it for them?
- lokedhs 4y ago
  Ostensibly it's so that the user can get more relevant ads. In practice, it's not of course, but that's the answer you'd get if you ask them.
  - nerdponx 4y ago
    Of course that's the goal. The IAB isn't an NSA front. The problem with advertising is not the primary goal, but all the secondary things that can happen.
    - account42 4y ago
      I disagree: The main problem with advertising is with its primary goal, which is manipulting people into excess consumption. There are of course other secondary issues as well, but even without them ads are already a net negative for society.
    - lokedhs 4y ago
      If it's the goal, you'd expect ads to be actually be more relevant and useful to users. They don't, which has been shown in studies. What has been shown is that showing the same things people already bought give people regret which increases total amount of purchases. In other word, the goal is to not to give users a good experiences watching ad's. It is to make them buy more, which is an orthogonal goal.

AstralStorm 4y ago

I suppose we should start using aliases then instead. Ultimately they cannot win this fight.

henriquez 4y ago
They can’t win this fight against people like us, but for the rest of people it’s a mess.