Fuck. No.
If this is (and to be honest I didn't read it that closely) just about making a particular email public, why not just have an inbound address?
submit@fwdeveryone.com
I'd actually consider using a service that did that.
We'd love to! Unfortunately going from just the last email in the thread to being able to reconstruct the entire thread would be exceedingly difficult.
Also, being able to use DKIM / SPF / DMARC / ARC to ensure the authenticity of conversations is very important to us. If you get a permission request from our site, we want you to be 100% confident that what you see when you preview the thread is going to be what you actually wrote, and that the uploader wasn't able to change the text at all. We support making redactions and anonymizing folks, but are strongly against people being able to change the text of what they or others wrote after the fact.
The whole magic of the site is being able to have the experience of looking over other people's shoulders into their inbox, and seeing how they actually talk with one another when they're not on stage. We're all for reducing friction, but we'd rather do it by just making a really slick Add-on so that we don't have to compromise on that core value.
As for the Gmail OAuth situation, I completely agree and have been raising awareness of this on HN since long before this became a big issue the other day. You can see my tickets requesting narrower OAuth scopes here:
https://issuetracker.google.com/issues?q=reporter:alex.krupp...
Are you sure you have really tried? when you forward an email, it includes all the headers you need to for your validations.
If I'm wrong and it's possible to do then by all means I'll do it though. The one approach that would work is building an InboxSDK plugin and having it forward every message in a thread automatically, because that way you'd have the header of each message. But then the security story is arguably much worse than OAuth.
--000000000000061f91056a2a279c
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Good. That's the way it should be.
"The whole magic of the site is being able to have the experience of looking over other people's shoulders into their inbox, and seeing how they actually talk with one another when they're not on stage."
What you call "magic" is a blatant and disgusting violation of my privacy. Those messages are "not on stage" for a reason; if I wanted them to be "on stage", then I would put them there myself. You have no business "looking over [my] shoulder" at all, let alone inviting everyone else in the world to do so.
I am having a hard time understanding if this is written sincerely or as satire.
I hope you are being humorous here because if this is indeed true, it does not look like something I would appreciate. I really don't want anyone to have the experience of looking over my shoulders into my inbox to see how I actually talk with others when I am not on stage.
I have always perceived email as a private mode of communication. Has this perception changed recently among the new generation of application developers?
> When uploading a thread as an individual, we email a permission request to each non-anonymized person who contributed at least one message to conversation. A thread will only go live if there is unanimous consent. This means that if even one person hits 'Decline' or doesn't respond to the permission request, the thread will remain private.