The sites to be redirected shouldn’t be already pre-selected by the extension. E.g I am logged in to Twitter on my browser and installing this extension will unintentionally redirect me to some instance.
And also, maybe the sites for redirection should be added by the user instead of the extension making assumptions. With libredirect I can click more options and add the site to Chrome’s handler.
It has a reasonable default of reliable privacy frontends but I may add an onboarding step(already in firefox due to more restrictions in their manifest v3 than chrome) for selecting sites
Libredirect is a manifest v2 extension (can’t be published on chrome store) and has permissions for all_urls, predirect is a manifest v3 extension and only has permissions for necessary domains
No, yes, It depends- for my simple use case of redirecting embeds and links, it is probably faster by using declarativenetapi instead of heavier webrequestblocking api
composer isn’t how you deploy software; it’s just how you download the dependency shitsmear for proper packaging and deployment as a verifiably consistent artifact. Enough of the hokey shit, please.
It would be cool to have it also just navigate the web for you as you. Basically would start polluting all the trackers and if enough people used it their databases would be so overwhelmed. Seems like a good tool from a privacy stand point would get hard to really pinpoint you for advertising or whatevertheir other purposes are for tracking.
Okay why do these random packages keep popping up with this? For attention?
It's irrelevant, they are barely used by anyone and if a site blocks legitimate e-mail providers, then it is not a site worth registering with in the first place.
Just because not many people use a package, doesn’t mean it is irrelevant. For open source packages (or anything really), as soon as one additional person uses a package, that package becomes relevant. The person/people using it become its advertisers, and when enough people are seen using a product, especially a free one, a larger group will use either that package or something similar to cut their own programming costs.
This is simplified, but the point is that we need to stop this sort of thing at the root (the package itself) before it gets noticed by larger groups and companies who might actually get away with this BS. Always remember, we are tech/privacy nerds. We are the minority, and the average person doesn’t care until something hurts them directly.
Blacklists like these aggressively and unapologetically collect all privacy-focused email domains they find, including simple forwarding and tagging services. With more and more sites using these lists to reject or black-hole email addresses, it has become difficult to protect one’s self from spam and cross-site account tracking.
Dear web developers, please don’t use these lists. Well-intended or not, they are privacy and user-hostile.
Devs can use them to block DISPOSABLE mails, not PRIVACY legitimate emails. That’s why it is critical to remove privacy oriented email domains from such lists
I’m okay with people using burner email addresses to get my free content, I just need to be able to filter them out of my list so it doesn’t drive up bounces and hurt deliverability.
AWS SES, for example, is fucking rabid about bounces. Being able to filter out addresses you know are going to bounce is pretty important.
Can a list like this be used for anti-privacy measures? Absolutely! Does that mean we should never create lists like this? For me that depends on whether or not you think we should prevent encryption because bad actors can use it for bad purposes.
You’re getting into very sketchy territory by saying a dev who is using a public GitHub repo to solve their problems needs to take it down because of how others are abusing it. Should the original dev be punished by their email provider because they shouldn’t be allowed to use this? Should anything that has potential harm be required to be a private repo? Who gets to decide all of that?
In the interest of specifics, can you point to where this specific list has done harm? I spent a fair amount of time looking around to make sure I wasn’t going out on a limb for someone with neutral views.
You’re getting into very sketchy territory by saying a dev who is using a public GitHub repo to solve their problems needs to take it down
No, I don’t believe I said any such thing. Since you mention it, though, I think taking this list down and removing the false positives before bringing it back up would be the responsible thing to do.
In the interest of specifics, can you point to where this specific list has done harm?
I know from personal experience and investigation (both as a user and on the admin side) that there are now many cases of privacy-focused email addresses being rejected, or even worse, accepted and then silently black-holed, due to the domains being inappropriately added to lists like this one. I don’t know of a place where people report such cases so they can be documented in aggregate, but if I find one, I’ll be sure to bookmark it in case your question comes up again in the future.
So you’re lumping this resource into a bucket with other resources that were malicious but you have no direct connection from this resource to harm you claim it causes? You’re saying a dev using this list to allow people to download free content but prune emails to save his bounce rate is doing bad things and needs to convert their FOSS use-case to yours?
Who gets to decide? You didn’t answer that and in the interest of good faith I’ll pull that one down as the important one since it follows from the argument I feel you’re making.
You’ve ignored my questions attempting to flesh out your point and refuse to link this specific list to anything bad. I don’t think you understand good or bad faith. Good luck with that!
I feel like having different attributes for each domain might be helpful so that those services using the list can filter for just the things they care about such as burner emails, anonymous registration, whether it requires any email/phone verification, etc. Right now domains kind of have the problem of just being on the list or not, with no indication on why they might be a problem.
The beauty of open source code is that you can fork this project and add that. The repo maintainer seems to have a simple litmus test for whether or not something should be on the list: is it something that will cause a bounce for email distribution? That’s a really subjective test so you kinda have to talk to the repo maintainer about answering it. I suspect they feed it into a library, perhaps one of the ones linked, for use with their platform, so their problem is most likely solved.
Is it possible to get this to work with OBS studio? I see the author mentions OBS as an “Alternative Project” but it seems ideal to have these pieces work together.
github.com
Active