Talk:Disposable email address/Archives/2013

Edits

I attempted to format the article, define the things said a little better, explain the issues and find some sources. The fundamental content hasn't been changed much, but I did find some references to back up the article. It would be sweet if someone who's more into network administration than I am could find some solid, technical source about administrators' methods of dealing with DEAs, and the methodology employed by DEA service providers. My area of, um, "expertise" is limited to the user experience I've had using DEAs before Mailshell decided to shut down. Feel free to clean up :) JorenCombs 21:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Joren

Links

• http://www.pookmail.com/
• http://www.jetable.org/en/index

Balance

Are the only uses of DEA for abuse? I'm not sure, but that's the slant taken by the article.....

Quick recheck on article balance?

-The entire first paragraph Following 'Potential Problems' is utter crap. This is a textbook example of what editors should do their best to avoid. I'm appealing to a good samaritan out there somewhere to rewrite this to better fit Wiki's writing standards. Anonymous 23:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Facebook blacklisting DEAs

I've posted on my blog at http://www.kinasevych.ca/archives/238 my personal experience with and screen captures of Facebook's banning of the Spamex DEA. I hope this is helpful.

Okinasevych (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"Poor man's DEA"

(Please excuse me for my quite bad English level)

First, I don't know if this known enough to be in this article (a sentence said itself "the vast majority of e-mail addresses do not use this technique").

However, it is still interesting.

I find that "is considered unlikely that a program would bother going to this effort" is a little buggy: it is very easy to do for a program (and unless spammers have 4Mhz CPUs working with Petabits connection there is no problem of CPU usage). The real argument is that a lot of coders are lazy (i'm a lazy person too).

But the most interesting is to modify a little the way it works: all email *not* using a plus sign could be discarded and so an efficient system could be made. It's still possible to have another main account to avoid such tricks with real friends...

So, interesting section...

W7a (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The "CheckString" solution needs to be explained more clearly, as does the "Checksum" above. I know what a checksum is, but what is the relevance to DEA? (I suspect it's just for pseudo-randomness, but that's just a guess.) Concrete examples would go a long way in both sections; e.g. "here's how DEA and poor man's DEA would look when creating a disposable address when creating an account at amazon.com."

freedom of speech

Missing a section on freedom of speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.110.185.135 (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What about freedom of speech? If you need anonymity, you might need an anonymizing email service, regardless of whether or not it's also DEA. 65.95.180.165 (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed "See Also" link to TrashMail

I wanted to say thanks for trying to de-orphan the article TrashMail, but I couldn't see any reason to include it as a link from the main DEA article. Currently, the article does not mention any DEA provider (I'm wondering if this should change, see "history section") but if you think there is a convincing reason to include TrashMail in the DEA article, then it might make sense to link to their article. As it stands, the article lends itself to becoming a long list of/advertisement for DEA providers, so we need to be careful what we choose to link to from here :)Joren (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Linking together relevant Wikipedia articles cannot be compared to mass-listing of external URLs. People mistake encyclopaedic objectivism for suppressing commercially beneficial information. (Call it "spam fallacy".) Besides can't see why TrashMail should be singled out. I'm bringing it back.
– 6birc (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please realize you are responding to a post made a year and a half ago, and you seem to be making some assumptions about why it was removed. The article has changed a bit since then. For one thing, in July of 2009 we didn't link to anyone in the See Also section, and so if anything, it was singling out TrashMail to suggest that it alone of all DEA articles should be linked to. No article has a "right" to be listed in See Also, commercial benefits or not. However, compare with Categories; in a category, every single article can (and should) be linked to. Why not create a Category:Disposable e-mail addressing?

I was (and still am) hoping that we could create a "History of DEA" section where the "pioneer" providers with articles could be linked to from within the text instead of in a See Also list. In the meantime, convince me: why is the article about TrashMail especially prominent compared to other articles about DEA?

-- Joren (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I support your idea of creating Category:Disposable e-mail addressing. Just busy doing other things at the moment. Though even an outright "directory" of DEA services would do Wikipedia no harm: after all, lists and comparisons of products and services are a well-established practice here. However, if the number of candidate items for such a list is low, merging it into a broader-scope article (such as this one) is most reasonable. It doesn't seem growing out of control yet.

No article has a "right" to be listed in See Also

Whatever we do here, should be in line with Wikipedia's mission (rules, guidelines etc.). Obvious. Other than that, we should aim simply at usability of published information. At least that's how I see my own role around here. If we take the "no DMOZ principle" seriously, I'm wondering how it applies to innumerable lists of things found on Wikipedia. My interpretation is that DMOZ covers "all that exists", whereas Wikipedia covers only the notable. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I definitely don't mind somebody elaborating on the history of DEAs. Personally I don't have any quotable sources to do this for others. I'm no specialist on DEAs, I just use them. Good luck if you are equipped to do this.

In the meantime, convince me: why is the article about TrashMail especially prominent compared to other articles about DEA?

No rational reason, I guess. Just caught more attention from contributor(s). I only care if information is legitimate and useful. Growth need not be perfectly uniform.

Or perhaps quotable sources have been easier to find!

– 6birc (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

DEA, Wikipedia and me

Fact: My own Wikipedia username comes from a disposable e-mail address generated over 9 years ago. That address is still functional despite being blatantly published for all to see on my user page since 2002—virtually spam-free! Impressive job, Sneakemail!
– 6birc (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

History Section?

The topic above started me on a train of thought that it might be good to write up a "History" section detailing who the major players were in creating disposable e-mail addressing. I tried Googling to find information but was not successful... Are there notable DEA providers who are instrumental in the history of disposable e-mail addressing? Who was the first to invent the concept? (e.g. Sneakemail and Mailinator both lay claim to this) I would love to have a history section, as I've been using DEAs for years ever since Mailshell started up but I remain largely ignorant of the history myself. Anyone got some sources?Joren (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

downsides? administrator restrictions? added counter-points, restructured

This section appeared to be biased towards the idea that DEA blocking is a universal, major issue for site administrators, and therefore for DEA providers and users. In my experience, this is greatly overblown as a concern, and misguided as to its effectiveness and usefulness (unless the site is in the business of selling email addresses without permission, or otherwise obsessed with tracking the user's "real identity", in which case screw them). It also seemed rather unfounded - claims of such sites being "many", yet only a few odd links to some odd articles and software manuals, none of which discuss this extensively or authoritatively enough, if at all. When you say "many", you better show some statistics numbers coming from a serious study, or provide concrete examples of major sites and what they ban.

I have been using ad-hoc "Poor Man's DEA" since 2004 or earlier, before this article was ever written, and I haven't encountered even one service which had a problem with it. In practice, I have only encountered one (1) misguided email address rejection because it didn't look "real" enough, and it had nothing to do with it being DEA. I used it to register accounts with many major sites, forums, banks, stores, payment systems, job search and handed it out to real people. Haven't had a problem once. Occasionally I get asked "why does it contain my name or company?", which is settled easily enough by telling them "one email per correspondent", and that's it.

On the other hand, I had realistic examples of this working very effectively. An email I used for a public whois record got seriously spam-listed - whatever. An online store was compromised. A few human correspondents got compromised. My inbox is clean to this day. Works like a charm.

--65.95.180.165 (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)