[HN Gopher] Email immutability matters more in a world with AI
___________________________________________________________________
Email immutability matters more in a world with AI
Author : brongondwana
Score : 138 points
Date : 2025-10-02 18:00 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.fastmail.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.fastmail.com)
| blibble wrote:
| > The world is changing, and we need to adapt and understand it.
|
| fastmail: read my lips: I pay you because you offer a traditional
| email service
|
| if you add a single AI feature I will return to self hosting
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| +1 as a fastmail family account customer.
| mbesto wrote:
| Same here. Fastmail customer for slowly peeling myself away
| from gmail. Just keep giving me reliable email service and
| I'll pay you.
| barbazoo wrote:
| Is there such a thing as a family account?
|
| > Add a user to your billing plan to give someone their own
| Fastmail Inbox and login. Build your team, be it work or
| family, and share calendars, contacts and more. Give users
| extra addresses for free
|
| The way my UX works is I can add users but they always have
| to have their own paid plan. Makes sense for heavy email
| users but not so much for my partner or our kids. I was
| hoping there was a 5 accounts for the price of 3 thing like
| Spotify et al do.
| spott wrote:
| They have a "family" plan on their pricing page. "For up to
| six in a family. Private, secure email for everyone."
| withinboredom wrote:
| And all these services doubling or even trippeling their price
| to offer the same thing ... but with AI! I'd happily pay
| fastmail double the price, without the AI.
| gdulli wrote:
| Heard, but let's not give them ideas.
| jimbo808 wrote:
| I genuinely tried to embrace them, but I have found these AI
| "enhancements" to be utterly useless. Very rare that they can
| answer the question I'm having about the product. I'm not
| sure what the norms are for how these assistants are trained
| or fine tuned for the specific products they're being offered
| in, but it seems that they're pretty bad. They don't seem to
| know anything about the product you're using them in.
| neutronicus wrote:
| We ship an AI assistant with our product.
|
| I am attempting to dogfood it, as I am pretty close to the
| target audience. I, a dev, get a bug report "X doesn't
| work". I have never heard of "X". Ask the AI assistant
| instead of Googling it or asking on Slack.
|
| Google's AI overview is basically always better (and
| delivered sooner) than our own proprietary AI assistant.
| daveguy wrote:
| The entire article is about protecting against AI, and their
| internal policy on AI use. No new features mentioned.
| blibble wrote:
| it doesn't hurt to dispel the illusion that "existing product
| plus AI equals more money"
| 28304283409234 wrote:
| Same. Family account. Stay simple.
| dlcarrier wrote:
| Self hosting? I can't even visit simple static web pages
| without Cloudflare blocking me because my web browser isn't
| sufficiently trackable. There's no way they're letting self-
| hosted email messages get through.
| drnick1 wrote:
| This is a myth. I self-host email and don't have
| deliverability issues. What matters is domain age, IP, and
| compliance with DKIM/DMARC.
| DamonHD wrote:
| Same here. Self hosting (STMP, DNS, etc) for ~30Y.
| gjgtcbkj wrote:
| Prove it.
| drnick1 wrote:
| What is there to prove? You can register your own domain
| (avoid exotic TLDs), wait a few months to build trust,
| and use an email setup script like Luke Smith's to set up
| Postfix/Dovecot.
|
| Before you start sending email, use mail-tester.com to
| check that DKIM is correctly set up and that your IP is
| not blacklisted.
| Cu3PO42 wrote:
| Is it? Last time I tried to self-host my email I did. I had
| DKIM, DMARC and SPF set up correctly as verified by
| multiple sites, but I couldnt't get reliable delivery to
| any Microsoft-hopsted mailboxes. Every other provider I
| tested was perfectly happy with my mail, unfortunately MS
| is too big a provider to ignore them.
|
| > What matters is domain age, IP, and compliance with
| DKIM/DMARC.
|
| Maybe it was my IP, but I cycled a few with my hosting
| provider and none of them made a difference. If I am unable
| to reliable obtain a 'trusted' IP, what good does it do?
|
| I switched to hosted email and all my delivery issues were
| gone.
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| There are tools that can check if your IP is on a
| blacklist [1].
|
| Also, my experience with self-hosting email is that if
| you get people to email you first from their domain, and
| you reply to them, then you are not going to be blocked.
| Of course, this won't work if you send a lot of cold
| emails.
|
| [1] https://mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx
| renewiltord wrote:
| Use an email warming service or warm it yourself
| witrak wrote:
| >> What matters is domain age, IP, and compliance with
| DKIM/DMARC.
|
| >Maybe it was my IP, but I cycled a few with my hosting
| provider and none of them made a difference. If I am
| unable to reliable obtain a 'trusted' IP, what good does
| it do?
|
| That's true. I have a Class C IP range and a domain
| registered for 30 years and yet Gmail still started
| ignoring my email server a couple of years ago...
| Flere-Imsaho wrote:
| Could you expand on this?
|
| I use everything I can to block trackers, spy ware, etc and
| have never been "Cloudflare blocked".
| Mizza wrote:
| Came here to say this. I use fastmail am quite happy with it
| because I just want a reliable inbox and nothing else. Just
| keep it running and don't touch anything else.
| Gigachad wrote:
| Tbh I do wish Fastmail would add some kind of automatic email
| classification like Gmail added many years ago to filter the
| newsletters out of the important email.
| tamimio wrote:
| Seriously, I just need a no BS email, if I see a single bubble
| with some assistance im bailing out immediately.
| julianlam wrote:
| This is a surprisingly aggressive reaction after reading a blog
| post asserting that said company will NOT go in that direction.
| mlhpdx wrote:
| Interesting take. I have decades worth of email archived, so it
| does ring true for me at least. I doubt anything in there is more
| interesting to Big Brother but who knows?
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| Interesting to federal government, not likely. Interesting to
| marketers and scammers, _absolutely_.
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| "An email is your copy, and the sender can't revise it later."
|
| Sort of. They can't change plain text, but modern emails often
| include vast swaths of remote content. When you open the message,
| it retrieves the relevant assets directly from whoever sent the
| email. That remote content is _not permanently stored_. It 's
| cached for a bit and will not be re-used if the email is opened
| months or years later.
|
| If those assets disappear or are changed, there's very little any
| email provider can do about that.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| The provider could create a snapshot at receive and/or open
| (fetching these potentially mutable asset dependencies within a
| message), similar to what https://github.com/karakeep-
| app/karakeep and https://github.com/gildas-lormeau/SingleFile
| do with url bookmarks, and attach it (or otherwise associate
| it) to the message. Optional of course.
|
| The benefit of this is senders couldn't treat it as a read
| receipt, because the provider can state "Our infra performs
| this operation for the user for immutability purposes" similar
| to other email operations that proxy these requests for privacy
| purposes.
| kenferry wrote:
| Modern marketing emails, yes... not emails written as
| correspondence. I don't think this post is talking about
| marketing emails.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| I don't think that's really the case, is it? At least, not in
| any formally-specified way. Modern email clients will extract
| metadata for things like airline reservations, shipping
| trackers, ICS calendar invites, etc, and give you live tiles
| specific to that time-sensitive info, but it's very clearly
| supplementary and at least in GMail none of it is pretending to
| be part of the message itself.
| IanCal wrote:
| Images are the clear thing that is typically remote -
| sometimes to the point of an email that's entirely just an
| image, or rather a link to an image.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Doesn't GMail pre-fetch those images and then cache them
| for the duration of the email being in your inbox, so as to
| defeat tracker dots, read receipts, etc?
| ian-g wrote:
| Narvar's tracking emails are mostly-image
|
| And on the one hand, it's cool as hell to see your email
| update itself to show tracking progress
|
| On the other hand, just send me a new email. It's fine, I
| promise.
| acdha wrote:
| If this was correct, you wouldn't be able to read those
| messages with remote content loading disabled or when in
| airplane mode. It's pretty uncommon for me to get messages
| where that's the case, and those are almost always marketing
| spam so, as they say, nothing of value is lost.
|
| Apple's private loading feature also shows how that could be
| fixed: the mail server can retrieve the referenced content once
| and save it so you'd always know what was served at the time
| the message was sent.
| bbarnett wrote:
| This isn't entirely true. While HTML email sometimes does have
| html tags in it, and can remotely download embedded images, it
| doesn't necessarily retrieve the asset from the person who sent
| it.
|
| It could be anywhere, which is another knock against HTML
| email.
|
| Which is why text only email is still king, and used in a lot
| of places still.
| munk-a wrote:
| When it's a silly marketing email - sure. But you'd be
| surprised how hard you need to work as a sender to ensure that
| your content will render correctly if your business is actually
| to deliver information via email. Remote content is ignored by
| default by almost all modern email clients (since developers
| got sneaky and started using it for tracking) so a good email
| with rich content is usually embedding all that content into a
| multi-part email and leveraging static styling rules to provide
| as much formatting as possible.
| novemp wrote:
| You don't have to work hard at all if you send plain text.
| munk-a wrote:
| I'm not certain if it still exists this way since I've been
| removed from the actual email templates for a while - but
| when I originally wrote them for my company they were
| multi-format supporting with the plaintext chunk as the
| lead portion - after that came the fancy HTML version with
| all the bells and whistles that the business required.
|
| Did anyone ever read the plaintext version of the email
| outside our company? Probably not - but it was super useful
| for testing that the content was correct by dumping the
| full message contents to console.
|
| Would I have been applauded for only providing customers
| with a plain text email? Nah, you need a really niche
| audience to appreciate that - I love that audience, but
| that audience isn't our customer base unfortunately.
|
| The actual mechanics of email formatting are quite simple
| (it basically hasn't changed at all in 50+ years) so it can
| be quite straightforward - it just gets difficult when you
| try and get fancy.
| matsemann wrote:
| Gmail keeps editing mails. They have a concept of "dynamic
| emails" people can send now. Like if you get a mail
| notification about something in Docs, they will keep updating
| the mail in your inbox together with modified / added comments
| in the document.
|
| Absolutely bonkers.
|
| "Because of the dynamic nature of AMP messages, the content
| displayed in Gmail messages can change as time passes."
| https://support.google.com/a/answer/9709409?hl=en
| jacquesm wrote:
| Great for audits. And gmail ate my homework...
| thewebguyd wrote:
| Microsoft has this now too with Loop components. If you put
| any text content around it that doesn't change, but the
| "Loop" component is a live doc and will update on the email
| client's end of the remote doc changes.
| freedomben wrote:
| Jesus, I had no idea :-(
| lupire wrote:
| This is just an ad.
| azhenley wrote:
| So should I stop building my AI-first email client?
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| The article says they're fine if you want to use AI but they're
| not going to foist it upon you
| cypherpunks01 wrote:
| Your own emails are immutable, if you trust nobody's modified
| your copy.
|
| But proving to others that an email hasn't been modified is a
| more difficult task. As I understand it, you'd need to retain
| DKIM keys for the signing server, to check that historical DKIM
| signatures verify correctly and the old message was not forged or
| altered.
|
| Are DKIM signing keys issued in some kind of Certificate
| Transparency log, where you can verify whether a particular DKIM
| key existed for a particular domain in the past, in order to do
| this in general?
| Alex3917 wrote:
| There is at least one service that scrapes and archives the
| DKIM keys of popular websites.
| acdha wrote:
| They at least were not historically archived. This came up
| during the Hunter Biden laptop investigation where people were
| able to verify some of the messages only because the Gmail key
| was archived in many places because that service is so popular.
| I'm not aware of anyone making a comprehensive archive but I'd
| be unsurprised if someone did based on news like that.
|
| https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim#but-gmails-...
|
| EDIT: this one exists but is incomplete:
| https://archive.prove.email/about
| bananapub wrote:
| people are trying to do the opposite - publish DKIM private
| keys regularly so everyone knows that old DKIM signatures can
| be forged, so that they can't be used against you.
| Imnimo wrote:
| >In a world where there's enough AI capability to process the
| entire web and rewrite every page to remove something, the cost
| of "changing history" is much reduced, so we can expect more of
| it.
|
| I gotta be honest, this scenario is not a concern that impacts my
| choice of email provider.
| estimator7292 wrote:
| Is email immutable? Honestly I haven't looked into it very much,
| but as an email self-hoster I do know that i have the ability to
| decrypt any email in any user's inbox. I presume I could also
| edit and re-encrypt them, but I don't really know.
|
| But as in all cases, you can only be _truly_ sure no one is
| tampering if you don 't give it to anyone else.
| kuroguro wrote:
| Clearly we need blockchain to solve this, not AI! /s
| neuroelectron wrote:
| General web immutability matters more than ever and not just
| because of AI. Please support archive.org and its sister sites.
| pkilgore wrote:
| Kagi & Fastmail are two of my favorite bills to pay.
| myhf wrote:
| I stopped paying for Kagi because they added AI.
| instagraham wrote:
| The immutability of documentation tech matters more in a world
| with AI.
|
| The cameras used to document "news" will need to be watermarked,
| fingerprinted and authenticated, like what Canon and Nikon are
| already doing (and which AFP has already adopted).
|
| It may have seemed gimmicky at first, but in a year or two,
| you'll probably _only_ be able to trust visuals from companies
| that do this (wire agencies like AFP, AP and Reuters are heavily
| disincentivised to create fake news anyway but that 's another
| topic).
|
| At a certain level, I imagine social media apps will also
| encourage direct camera-to-post for documentation/videos of
| reality, since this will be the only end-to-end method to verify
| an image was created unaltered. I can imagine a world where, if
| you film a protest through the Instagram app, you'd get some kind
| of "this is real" badge on it, whereas if you upload a video, it
| gets treated as "could be AI" like 99% of all future content.
| gmueckl wrote:
| On the other hand, this requires locked down devices running
| trusted apps. Otherwise, such a badge won't have any meaning.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| I think it's already irrelevant: cryptographic proofs of
| video evidence is difficult to communicate to audiences while
| watermarks will be learned by AI as trusted and injected into
| AI videos anyway. Also, in between the lens and your eyeball
| is usually a pipeline of editing applied anyway so either the
| cryptographic signature ends up with every layer signing the
| modifications applied + the previous layer or you stack
| watermarks. But ultimately the original problem is how to
| communicate the cryptographic chain validity.
| JambalayaJimbo wrote:
| Communication is a different story, do we know whether it's
| possible in the first place? And that requires device
| integrity.
| pants2 wrote:
| In theory this is where zero-knowledge proofs can come
| in. That would allow you to apply transforms to the video
| (crop, contrast, resize etc) and be able to prove the
| exact transform that was applied. However it's still
| computationally expensive.
| skybrian wrote:
| Most users don't care, but in theory a newspaper could use
| this tech to verify certain camera images and their readers
| could just trust that they've vetted things.
|
| In practice, ordinary users don't care much about
| mainstream media anymore.
| drnick1 wrote:
| > locked down devices running trusted apps
|
| This is a bigger threat than phony AI videos.
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| To whom? I can imagine starting wars with fake videos.
|
| It's hard to imagine someone kvetching about not being able
| to sideload apps to their phone reaching that point of
| significance. I don't mean to completely dismiss very real
| concerns about what people can and can't do with their
| purchases, but OTOH war involves actual people actually
| dying, and manipulating media is a fantastic way to get
| one.
| bippihippi1 wrote:
| removing methods to circumvent monitoring and control of
| information makes it easier for a bad actor to take
| advantave of these tools. Yes it's nice for the good guys
| to be able to keep their code secure, but do you want a
| dictator to be able to do that?
| toasterlovin wrote:
| Interestingly, I think Apple has inadvertently positioned
| themselves very well to be able to authenticate various
| activity as being done by an actual human. What if anything
| they decide to do with that capability remains to be seen.
| instagraham wrote:
| The LIDAR sensor could be quite useful in authentication.
|
| A lot depends on watermarking at source and the social media
| platform using that to make a clickable/hard watermark
| cm2187 wrote:
| By the time the video reaches the end user (i.e. on tiktok and
| the likes), it will have been re-compressed, edited, meme-ed,
| voiced over a dozen time. So not sure how you preserve trust in
| that chain.
| instagraham wrote:
| I imagine a new type of bluetick would emerge. There will
| always be those who can't distinguish between a tick emoji
| next to a username and the actual thing, but that's a UX
| problem. Something shot and verified on-app could get a
| special, clickable tick on it when it's shared.
|
| This removes the possibilities for bad actors to just one -
| the platform itself.
|
| In any case, the audience will have to learn new ways to
| "trust" and tech alone won't be the solution. But I've less
| hope in people and more hope in new social contracts
|
| I think LIDAR sensors would be useful to verify depth
| information in an image, on a side note.
| istrice wrote:
| You don't, the only reliable source will be the source that
| has signed the content. It basically takes us back to the
| times when the only footage available was curated and
| broadcast by TV.
| cm2187 wrote:
| Yeah, but I don't think Reuters, AP or AFP are anywhere
| near the top 1000 most popular accounts on tiktok. So they
| can sign anything they want, won't affect the average
| tiktok user.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Also, one thing HNers get fundamentally wrong is that anybody
| cares about trust/authenticity. And I don't see what's so
| special about photo/video.
|
| One of the most common forms of submissions on Reddit/Twitter
| is an image with text, or a screenshot of a tweet, or a
| screenshot of a headline that makes a claim, and everyone
| takes it dead seriously.
|
| Almost nobody is going "hmm let me look this up first to see
| if it even exists or accurately represents the facts".
|
| So if all you need is an image of text for people to believe
| it, what does it even matter if you have this sophisticated
| system where you require photos to be signed by camera
| hardware or whatever? You aren't even putting a dent in how
| bullshit spreads.
| et1337 wrote:
| New startup idea: point a C2PA camera at a screen and launder
| videos through it at $1 per minute.
| jrockway wrote:
| I don't think this would accomplish anything. For one thing,
| quite a bit of misinformation these days comes from official
| government sources that can just compel the manufacturers to
| turn over authentic signing keys. Remember that Trump just
| posted an AI-generated video of himself shilling medbeds; when
| it was pointed out as AI-generated, he deleted it. If Truth
| Social checked the cryptographic signature, he'd order his
| staff to sign it. They wouldn't dare say no.
|
| The next flaw is that cameras are happy to record screens
| playing AI-generated videos and mark them as authentic. Perhaps
| you can tell today because the screen pixels aren't perfectly
| 1:1 mapped to the image sensor pixels, but as soon as elections
| depend on being able to do that, those screens will exist.
|
| People are saying to add LIDAR to prevent this "record the
| screen" hack, but a mirror over the LIDAR sensor and me sitting
| at a desk motionless looks to LIDAR exactly like the world
| leader I'm deepfaking sitting motionless at a desk. People are
| not using AI to generate amazing action shots.
|
| At the end of the day, people will have to take some personal
| responsibility. Migrants probably aren't killing and eating
| pets. Pets taste terrible and grocery stores that you can just
| walk into and steal whatever you want exist. There isn't a bed
| that can cure any disease. If someone says they do, even a
| world leader, test them out on something non-critical. Break
| off a fingernail and see if the magic bed can regrow it
| overnight. If not, maybe stick to traditional cancer treatments
| until there is some clearer evidence.
| QuantumNomad_ wrote:
| > those screens will exist
|
| It's already possible. See the Stagecraft studio they built
| for the production of TV series The Mandalorian.
|
| > shooting the series on a stage surrounded by massive LED
| walls displaying dynamic digital sets, with the ability to
| react to and manipulate this digital content in real time
| during live production
|
| https://www.unrealengine.com/fr/blog/forging-new-paths-
| for-f...
|
| > The StageCraft process involves shooting live-action actors
| and sets surrounded by large, very high-definition LED video
| walls. These walls display computer-generated imagery
| backdrops, once traditionally composited primarily in post-
| production after shooting with chroma key screens. These
| facilities are known as "volumes". When shooting, the
| production team is able to realign the background instantly
| based on moving camera positions. The entire CGI background
| can be manipulated in real-time.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StageCraft
| WrongOnInternet wrote:
| The problem with this approach is that it is easily bypassed.
| Simply point your camera at a high quality monitor playing an
| AI generated video, and there you go, and authenticated AI
| video. In the future, video evidence is going to be as
| convincing as it was for 99.9999...% of human history. We
| survived with out it in the past. We'll survive without it in
| the future.
| canadiantim wrote:
| What does it mean for the court system though, what happens
| to video and image evidence?
| deadbabe wrote:
| That is for the jury to decide. If they think the evidence
| is fabricated in some way, they will have reasonable doubt.
|
| Lawyers must carefully pick jurors depending on how
| susceptible they may be to AI manipulation.
| jjk7 wrote:
| Can AV evidence not be faked without AI tools?
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| We have been able to manipulate legal documents for 100s of
| years. We have been able to manipulate images for over 100
| years. We have been able to manipulate images on any
| computer with a few hours of training for for 30+ years. We
| have been able to manipulate videos with training for 20+
| years.
|
| It is an order of magnitude easier now (likely as easy as
| documents have been to manipulate for 30ish years now).
| However, this is not a new problem, courts have always had
| to deal with manipulated evidence.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| I doubt it will be that easy to bypass. A fake would still
| have to withstand pixel-level analysis on the level of
| methods that already detect tampering in regular video. For
| one thing, that will have to be a very high quality monitor
| indeed to leave no detectable trace of e.g. moire patterns.
| latexr wrote:
| A fake doesn't need to be perfect to be effective, it just
| needs to fool enough people. Most posts won't (and couldn't
| ever) be scrutinised at that level.
| latexr wrote:
| > I can imagine a world where, if you film a protest through
| the Instagram app, you'd get some kind of "this is real" badge
| on it
|
| On Instagram? The website owned by that guy who loves AI slop
| and wants to fill your feed with it? That Instagram? Yeah,
| doesn't seem likely.
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2025/09/25/meta-launches-vibes-a-shor...
|
| https://fortune.com/2024/10/30/mark-zuckerberg-ai-generated-...
|
| https://futurism.com/zuckerberg-lonely-friends-create-ai
| NoSalt wrote:
| Commercial for FastMail???
| kalap_ur wrote:
| I mean, to be fair, Google's scam of how much GBs you have is
| very annoying and downright scandalous.
|
| I had 16.5GB or so used up so it was flashing red. When paid for
| Gemini, my total space jumped to 2TB and my usage dropped to
| 12GB. Disgusting. So might as well switch to fastmail. Not sure.
| drnick1 wrote:
| Email has never been immutable. Email that you receive on your
| own server can be trivially altered, it's just a plain text file.
|
| In fact until recently email was sent and received in the clear
| like a postcard, the whole system wasn't designed to be secure or
| secret in any way.
| lexlambda wrote:
| Immutable as in the message won't be altered/deleted by the
| sender. This is. This is about user control, as opposed to chat
| apps or social media, where posts are frequently edited, get
| taken down after an outrage or links can disappear to link-rot.
|
| From article: "An email is your copy, and the sender can't
| revise it later."
| wpollock wrote:
| Until retired as a professor, I used Thunderbird and the GPG
| plug-in to sign emails. That makes them immutable no matter who
| hosts the email server you use. I encrypted the emails holding
| grades, if the recipient said they were able to decrypt. Setup
| was non-trivial but very doable. I also used (and still use) a
| plug-in that clearly shows if any email fails DKIM or SPF (I
| think DMarc too).
| odyssey7 wrote:
| No mention of the blockchain?
| throwaway_0501 wrote:
| Buried lede: Fastmail is using AI-generated code / words /
| decision-making systems, just like everyone else and following
| the same meaningless "principles" as everyone else.
|
| > For our staff, we encourage understanding the tools that exist
| in the world, and how to use them safely. Our policy makes it
| clear that any use of tools, including tools with AI in them,
| must follow clear privacy-preserving principles:
| Data Protection: All data protection, confidentiality, and
| privacy policies must be followed (our vendors for things like
| anti-abuse and support are moving towards using AI for
| translation, categorization, abuse detection - and we are
| ensuring that their policies continue to provide protection for
| our customers) Accountability for work: Any AI
| generated writing or code must be reviewed and understood by a
| human being, and go through our regular second-set-of-eyes
| processes before being used Bias awareness: Actively
| look for biases or hallucinations in AI output Human
| authority: Always have a path for appeal to a human from any
| decision that is made by automated tools
| akkartik wrote:
| Email is only _part_ of my electronic memory. Over time it 's
| become more important to me to maintain my own copies of my
| memory on devices I control. The forms and formats are many, and
| they all need a commitment to maintain control. So yes, use email
| over more mutable media. And avoid remotely mutable extensions to
| emails. And keep a local copy of your email. And maintain date-
| stamped archives of stuff you work on, and keep your codebases
| easy to run from any point in their history, and write good
| notes. Constant vigilance.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Where's the AI to address the number one issue I have with email?
|
| If you count for automatically categorized Bayesian spam, it's
| about 99% noise.
|
| That's one of the things that sucks about the current AI. Being
| employed by people that that are categorically opposed to using
| it to enhance privacy and filter advertising.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-02 23:01 UTC)