[jwally]

I'll be a contrarian: I like it.

Is it a black and white silver bullet one call destroys 'em all solution? Not even close. But, like he states in his article; from a "defence in depth" its another strong signal.

Are you a bad guy just because you have a weirdo email (which I do)? No.

Are you a bad guy just because you use tor? No.

Are you a bad guy just because you're trying to make a purchase during an extreme surge? No.

Are you PROBABLY a bad guy given a weirdo email, you're on tor, and you're trying to buy during a surge in purchases? I would say yes. I might not ban you outright, but you're going to jump through a lot more hoops than someone with an ancient email and a residential ip address.

[thih9]

> you're going to jump through a lot more hoops than someone with an ancient email and a residential ip address.

I understand this kind of reasoning.

At the same time I see a potential to snowball. This will encourage people to move away from weird addresses. Which will make it an even more effective filter and will justify stricter measures. So more people will move away. Etc.

[jwally]

Thats a really good point. I'm working through this space right now so I'm kind of myopic to stuff like this.

I use a self hosted VPN (digiOcean); but under duress, I'd be a jerk to me. tbh; most sites are, lol. I've given up youtube and google because I am reCaptcha'd to death...

To your actual point, I don't think it would be a deal killer per se in implementation. [e-mail] isn't blocked because they show up in troys list of known emails.

[e-mail] is suspicious in this model because it has not been seen before.