[redeeman]

> Why 0.1% false positives are acceptable: Disposable email signups are low-quality. A false positive means one legitimate user retries with a different address — a minor inconvenience. False negatives (letting disposables through) are the real problem, and bloom filters guarantee zero false negatives.

this typical insane techbro considerations, would rather inconvenience REAL potential customers, than a TINY inconvenience for themselves for someone thats almost certainly not gonna be a customer.

it is disgusting that anyone thinks like this, let alone spends the effort to implement it.

[weddpros]

Let me explain: I'm operating a free cyber security service and 22% of users use a disposable emails. 22% of emails bouncing is not a TINY inconvenience. Hackers using my service incognito isn't a TINY inconvenience. If you're hiding your identity, I can't offer a safer internet to everyone.

I respect your disgust, and I feel the same towards your entitlement and presumptions.

I'll fix the percentage, it's 0.01%.

[redeeman]

i am not entitled, however, you are still punishing real users to catch those that are not your users.

even more, your false sense of security here makes it WAY worse, we just saw how someone was able to find a service you didnt catch in almost no time. in addition to that, are you willing to block @gmail, @protonmail or those? which you can sign up with in NO time. essentially your disposable email filter doesnt help you AT ALL stop someone that has even the tiniest of motivation to sign up without giving their real email address.

Just be aware that you are choosing to do actions that are roughly equivalent to what dvd manufacturers do, with unskippable intros telling you to not be a pirate, while the pirates just get contents without this.