|
| ▲ | nxobject an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| Now I'm curious: what was in the watermark that would trigger Outlook? (I'm having some fun speculating. My guess right now is a ye olde "bu¥ vi@gr@ ch33p!!!!" spam trigger.) |
| |
| ▲ | jacquesm 32 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | No, it was a bit more subtle than that but I'm definitely not going to post the secret sauce in an open forum. The trick is to trigger the filters in a way that they'll block the mail completely, not just spam trap it. | |
| ▲ | rzzzt 30 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Joining in on the speculation game: the EICAR string maybe? |
|
|
| ▲ | miki123211 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| remember about aria-hidden or equivalent, otherwise you are making the text visible to screen reader users. I have read many snide comments and personal ID numbers that way, mostly in public and public-ish documents. |
| |
| ▲ | jacquesm an hour ago | parent [-] | | Oh, that's funny. I don't mind people with screen readers reading it. The Venn diagram with 'people with screen readers' on one side and 'people that are about to break an embargo' must be an interesting subset. |
|
|
| ▲ | trinari an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What's the benefit? It appears that the outlook rejection was unintended. So against llm processing? |
| |
| ▲ | strbean an hour ago | parent [-] | | The embargo was enforced. This slightly mitigates scenarios where someone accidentally sends a document via email while it is under embargo. |
|
|
| ▲ | apublicfrog an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Amusingly Nathan For You did this in a humourous way back in 2014 (S02E06 - "Party Planner"). |
