| ▲ | perching_aix a day ago | |
The implication is that this other email host also being one of the popular ones means there'll be a more widespread user impact than when they block smaller providers. So just like with Outlook, they put out this statement on why they're doing this. | ||
| ▲ | lysace a day ago | parent [-] | |
Ah, I see your point. Although: I don't think the kind of developers that use low quality email providers like that follow HN. Edit: Remember those 7+ hours back in 1999 when all Microsoft Hotmail accounts were wide open for perusal? https://time.com/archive/6922796/how-bad-was-the-hotmail-dis... > Yesterday a Swedish newspaper called Expressen published the programmer’s work, a simple utility designed to save time by allowing Hotmail users to circumvent that pesky password verification process when logging into their accounts. The result? As many as 50 million Hotmail accounts were made fully accessible to the public. Now that the damage has been done, what have we learned? > It wasn’t until the lines of code appeared in Expressen that people realized how vulnerable Hotmail really was. The utility allowed anybody who wanted to to create a Web page that would allow them log into any Hotmail account. Once the word was out, dozens of pages such as this one were created to take advantage of the security hole. Unfortunate programmers at Microsoft, which owns Hotmail, were rousted out of bed at 2 AM Pacific time to address the problem. By 9 AM Hotmail was offline. https://www.theregister.com/1999/08/30/massive_security_brea... https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/aug/31/neilmcintosh.r... | ||