Read all the way through the last sentence and you'll see that the number of times I've seen the problem is zero, not one.
I'll expand it: the number of times I've ever heard of that problem actually happening -- not from some anonymous person on the internet, but from someone I know or talked to personally -- is zero. And again I don't dismiss that it could happen in the real universe, just that it is so incredibly rare that to dismiss this new feature because of it is meaningless.
If I unsubscribe from one spammer, do I hear from similar (but different) spammers?
What spam are you talking about? You don't mean things like Viagra and penny stocks, because those already go into your spam folder. They also don't come with unsubscribe links, so nobody is trying to unsubscribe from those. So what spam are you talking about?
This feature is for 'spam' such as the Daily Deals email from the company where you bought some RAM, or the newsletter you used to care about, or a fundraising email from a charity you once donated to. Those spams come with unsubscribe links, and I have a 100% success rate unsubscribing from them, and a 0% rate of subsequently getting "spam from different spammers", as you report. I'm just wondering how our experiences could be so different.
And also, I don't work on Google's spam filter algorithm, but I'm pretty sure this is not right:
If you mark something as NOT spam in Google, its not spam for you and and you will get it even if others consider it spam.
If you mark it as not spam, I think that does weigh in to whether it is marked as spam for other people. Anyone from Google want to comment on that? I think that's the whole point of the croudsourced spam filter.
No, a gas station doesn't have a "nexus" to ownership of cars; cell carriers do have that nexus. It would be more like asking Avis to remotely disable a car they rented which was just used in a bank robbery. Is that a good idea or not? Maybe, I don't know, but it's not really similar to a gas station.
Hmmm, I don't agree. You are mis-training the spam filter by marking legit emails as spam. The rest of us who suffer false positives based on your shenanigans don't appreciate it, but that's the tragedy of the commons I guess -- freeloaders like you ruin it a little bit for the rest of us, and then you complain when we* try to fix the system that you are undermining.
For good measure, if your Facebook password is "pickles" and your Gmail password is "bananas", you should set your Dropbox password to "condoms" and your Slashdot password to "anal lube". Then the thief is unlikely to even keep reading the 'shopping list'.
since LastPass is closed source you are taking their word for it.
I see comments like this all the time on Slashdot. The implication is that if you aren't willing to do the following, then you are an idiot who can expect zero security:
1. Get a dual PhD in electrical engineering and computer security. 2. Build your own personal chip manufacturing plant with no contractors or help of any kind, because one of them could be a spy. 3. Personally develop your own CPU instruction set and personally implement it on a chip using your personal manufacturing plant. 4. Personally develop your own computer language with absolute perfect security, which you personally audit because you are a PhD in computer security 5. Write your own software stack for keeping passwords. 6. Run your software, written in your language, on a computer built in your manufacturing plant. 7. Do all this in a physically security building which, again, you personally built with no help from anyone else, because they could be spies.
I suggest that you consider the possibility that there could be levels of security which are adequate and trustworthy short of that standard. But, while you consider that, I give you props for, apparently, being the only human on the plant to complete those 7 steps, who has a password wallet which requires no trust of anyone else ever anywhere in the chain. Congratulations to you, but the rest of us are too busy to do that.
If it's on-topic, who cares? I'm a Java programmer but if Oracle sent me and a million other Java programmers an on-topic bulk unsolicited email, that would be spam -- obviously. Also, I live in Wisconsin but if Scott Walker sent a non-commercial (political) email to me and a million other residents, that would be spam -- obviously.
Whoa. Whoa whoa whoa. Clearly illegal? I disagree with that. The owner of an account is the owner of the email account linked to it which is the entire premise of the password reset system. The person who signed up for that airline account specifically handed the ownership of the account over to the GP. I think GP did exactly the right thing both morally and practically: if the person is using your email address, what else might they be using? I've never been confronted with that situation but I would do exactly the same thing.
It's hard for me to believe that you use Gmail and still describe that experience. Do you actually use Gmail? Do you get a lot of spam in your inbox? Is that what you are saying? And when you unsubscribe from those spams, you get even more spam in your inbox?
I just want to be clear about your story, because that is exactly the opposite of my experience. I'd be interested in figuring out why our experiences are so different -- but I suspect that you either don't use Gmail, or you don't base your claims on your experience, so I'm just curious.
I actually get a lot of false positives. I've learned to go look through my spam folder from time to time. ("A lot" being maybe one a week, or a few per month.) But I almost never ever get a false negative; I get maybe one real spam in my inbox per year, perhaps less.
They work for the people who pay them. Duh. We could switch to a recipient-pays postal mail system if you prefer. I'd be happy to pay Google for email service, that would be quite nice actually.
Yawn. I used to hear this trope in the 1990s. I've been unsubscribing from emails since the Clinton administration and I have a 0% rate of experiencing what you describe. Zero. When I unsubscribe, I have always been actually unsubscribed as expected. What you describe isn't technically impossible but it makes me suspect that you are subscribing to, and then trying to unsubscribe from, porno emails or penis enhancement or mail-order bride or penny stock emails. I've never crossed paths with those.
The only problem I've had is with the Democratic party in Alaska. They took my email and sent it to seemingly dozens of related groups and candidates. Each individual one has unsubscribed me as expected, but somewhere they still have me on a list and keep reinserting me into their distribution lists. So that's a problem of sharing, not specifically unsubscribing.
He's currently the most famous science promoter in the world which is why he was the heir apparent to Carl Sagan, who used to be the most famous science promoter in the world.
I dare say the AC who posted the original comment just doesn't pay attention to much astronomy, which is fine, but his comment evinces the arrogance of ignorance: he only knows one astronomer, therefore there must only be one famous astronomer.
This might be hard to believe, but very few Americans give a shit about Justin Bieber or Oprah. It's true those are both famous American artists ("aritsts"), but they still play to a tiny slice of the country. The rest of us think Bieber is a talentless asshat, and Oprah is boring and played. Also, almost none of us have blonde-dyed hair and spray-on tans, even though that's who we put on television. Our non-celebrities are just about exactly the same as the non-celebrities throughout the Western world.
Pluto is still there. I'm pretty sure Tyson has never been to Pluto and never changed it in any way. Pluto is still the exact same thing it has been since before any of us were born.
Desire deshmire. We actually went to the moon, a few different times even, and humanity is still waiting for anyone else to step up and do the same. Suck it, haters. You go to the moon, and then you can sit at the big-boy table with us, but you'll still be fifty years behind.
Yes, absolutely, this use of 'gender' is modern, having arose from sexual academia in the last, say, fifty years or so. Before that I don't know of a usage distinction between 'sex' and 'gender' (but I'm also not an expert etymologist). But in 2014, when discussing "gender" in the context of the "transgender" issue, it would be a mistake to conflate "sex" with "gender".
"Trust me, nobody would go through all of that stuff (the reaction of people, the hormones, the discrimination, the cost, the upheaval to your life, the surgeries, people telling you you're going through a phase) unless they were REALLY certain that was what they needed."
Well... not nobody. Clearly there are just some emotionally confused and distressed people in that group who don't know what the heck they want. Let's give everyone the benefit of the doubt and say those are in a small minority but they certainly exist.
Good luck to your coworker. It's a tough world for people like that.
Slashdot Mirror
Read all the way through the last sentence and you'll see that the number of times I've seen the problem is zero, not one.
I'll expand it: the number of times I've ever heard of that problem actually happening -- not from some anonymous person on the internet, but from someone I know or talked to personally -- is zero. And again I don't dismiss that it could happen in the real universe, just that it is so incredibly rare that to dismiss this new feature because of it is meaningless.
...and nothing of value was lost...?
I'm still trying to understand. You said this:
If I unsubscribe from one spammer, do I hear from similar (but different) spammers?
What spam are you talking about? You don't mean things like Viagra and penny stocks, because those already go into your spam folder. They also don't come with unsubscribe links, so nobody is trying to unsubscribe from those. So what spam are you talking about?
This feature is for 'spam' such as the Daily Deals email from the company where you bought some RAM, or the newsletter you used to care about, or a fundraising email from a charity you once donated to. Those spams come with unsubscribe links, and I have a 100% success rate unsubscribing from them, and a 0% rate of subsequently getting "spam from different spammers", as you report. I'm just wondering how our experiences could be so different.
And also, I don't work on Google's spam filter algorithm, but I'm pretty sure this is not right:
If you mark something as NOT spam in Google, its not spam for you and and you will get it even if others consider it spam.
If you mark it as not spam, I think that does weigh in to whether it is marked as spam for other people. Anyone from Google want to comment on that? I think that's the whole point of the croudsourced spam filter.
No, a gas station doesn't have a "nexus" to ownership of cars; cell carriers do have that nexus. It would be more like asking Avis to remotely disable a car they rented which was just used in a bank robbery. Is that a good idea or not? Maybe, I don't know, but it's not really similar to a gas station.
Hmmm, I don't agree. You are mis-training the spam filter by marking legit emails as spam. The rest of us who suffer false positives based on your shenanigans don't appreciate it, but that's the tragedy of the commons I guess -- freeloaders like you ruin it a little bit for the rest of us, and then you complain when we* try to fix the system that you are undermining.
* (we, but not me specifically)
For good measure, if your Facebook password is "pickles" and your Gmail password is "bananas", you should set your Dropbox password to "condoms" and your Slashdot password to "anal lube". Then the thief is unlikely to even keep reading the 'shopping list'.
since LastPass is closed source you are taking their word for it.
I see comments like this all the time on Slashdot. The implication is that if you aren't willing to do the following, then you are an idiot who can expect zero security:
1. Get a dual PhD in electrical engineering and computer security.
2. Build your own personal chip manufacturing plant with no contractors or help of any kind, because one of them could be a spy.
3. Personally develop your own CPU instruction set and personally implement it on a chip using your personal manufacturing plant.
4. Personally develop your own computer language with absolute perfect security, which you personally audit because you are a PhD in computer security
5. Write your own software stack for keeping passwords.
6. Run your software, written in your language, on a computer built in your manufacturing plant.
7. Do all this in a physically security building which, again, you personally built with no help from anyone else, because they could be spies.
I suggest that you consider the possibility that there could be levels of security which are adequate and trustworthy short of that standard. But, while you consider that, I give you props for, apparently, being the only human on the plant to complete those 7 steps, who has a password wallet which requires no trust of anyone else ever anywhere in the chain. Congratulations to you, but the rest of us are too busy to do that.
Agreed. GP is wrong. Spam is
1. Unsolicited
2. Bulk
If it's on-topic, who cares? I'm a Java programmer but if Oracle sent me and a million other Java programmers an on-topic bulk unsolicited email, that would be spam -- obviously. Also, I live in Wisconsin but if Scott Walker sent a non-commercial (political) email to me and a million other residents, that would be spam -- obviously.
Whoa. Whoa whoa whoa. Clearly illegal? I disagree with that. The owner of an account is the owner of the email account linked to it which is the entire premise of the password reset system. The person who signed up for that airline account specifically handed the ownership of the account over to the GP. I think GP did exactly the right thing both morally and practically: if the person is using your email address, what else might they be using? I've never been confronted with that situation but I would do exactly the same thing.
It's hard for me to believe that you use Gmail and still describe that experience. Do you actually use Gmail? Do you get a lot of spam in your inbox? Is that what you are saying? And when you unsubscribe from those spams, you get even more spam in your inbox?
I just want to be clear about your story, because that is exactly the opposite of my experience. I'd be interested in figuring out why our experiences are so different -- but I suspect that you either don't use Gmail, or you don't base your claims on your experience, so I'm just curious.
I actually get a lot of false positives. I've learned to go look through my spam folder from time to time. ("A lot" being maybe one a week, or a few per month.) But I almost never ever get a false negative; I get maybe one real spam in my inbox per year, perhaps less.
They work for the people who pay them. Duh. We could switch to a recipient-pays postal mail system if you prefer. I'd be happy to pay Google for email service, that would be quite nice actually.
Yawn. I used to hear this trope in the 1990s. I've been unsubscribing from emails since the Clinton administration and I have a 0% rate of experiencing what you describe. Zero. When I unsubscribe, I have always been actually unsubscribed as expected. What you describe isn't technically impossible but it makes me suspect that you are subscribing to, and then trying to unsubscribe from, porno emails or penis enhancement or mail-order bride or penny stock emails. I've never crossed paths with those.
The only problem I've had is with the Democratic party in Alaska. They took my email and sent it to seemingly dozens of related groups and candidates. Each individual one has unsubscribed me as expected, but somewhere they still have me on a list and keep reinserting me into their distribution lists. So that's a problem of sharing, not specifically unsubscribing.
Huh? Of course they do and always have. How could they possibly not? Police decide how to prioritize enforcement; it's a prerogative of the job.
Cute answer, I like it.
Pedantry: One "football field" was not a metric unit last time I checked, regardless of whether football fields are measured in meters.
That happened shortly after we won World War 2. You might not have heard, but we're just about wrapping up The American Century.
He's currently the most famous science promoter in the world which is why he was the heir apparent to Carl Sagan, who used to be the most famous science promoter in the world.
Or also Pamela Gay.
I dare say the AC who posted the original comment just doesn't pay attention to much astronomy, which is fine, but his comment evinces the arrogance of ignorance: he only knows one astronomer, therefore there must only be one famous astronomer.
This might be hard to believe, but very few Americans give a shit about Justin Bieber or Oprah. It's true those are both famous American artists ("aritsts"), but they still play to a tiny slice of the country. The rest of us think Bieber is a talentless asshat, and Oprah is boring and played. Also, almost none of us have blonde-dyed hair and spray-on tans, even though that's who we put on television. Our non-celebrities are just about exactly the same as the non-celebrities throughout the Western world.
Pluto is still there. I'm pretty sure Tyson has never been to Pluto and never changed it in any way. Pluto is still the exact same thing it has been since before any of us were born.
Desire deshmire. We actually went to the moon, a few different times even, and humanity is still waiting for anyone else to step up and do the same. Suck it, haters. You go to the moon, and then you can sit at the big-boy table with us, but you'll still be fifty years behind.
"In the process we invented the modern world"
And the rest of you never even thank us, you're welcome... sheesh.
Stop with the transparent false dichotomies. The police exercise wide discretion in everything they do.
Yes, absolutely, this use of 'gender' is modern, having arose from sexual academia in the last, say, fifty years or so. Before that I don't know of a usage distinction between 'sex' and 'gender' (but I'm also not an expert etymologist). But in 2014, when discussing "gender" in the context of the "transgender" issue, it would be a mistake to conflate "sex" with "gender".
"Trust me, nobody would go through all of that stuff (the reaction of people, the hormones, the discrimination, the cost, the upheaval to your life, the surgeries, people telling you you're going through a phase) unless they were REALLY certain that was what they needed."
Well... not nobody. Clearly there are just some emotionally confused and distressed people in that group who don't know what the heck they want. Let's give everyone the benefit of the doubt and say those are in a small minority but they certainly exist.
Good luck to your coworker. It's a tough world for people like that.