Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Facebook Ending "@facebook.com" Email System

posted by LaminatorX on Wednesday February 26 2014, @09:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the And-nothing-of-value-was-lost dept.

lhsi writes:

"The BBC is reporting that starting in early March, Facebook is ending its @facebook.com e-mail system, due to a lack of use. E-mails sent to a users @facebook.com address will now be 'forwarded to the personal email address from which the member signed up for the site'.

If this is the e-mail address that is the personalised user URL followed by @facebook.com, does that mean that users will potentially be exposed to e-mail spam through it? The @facebook.com e-mails can be pieced together easily enough (and go to an 'Other' folder in the Facebook Messages area without notifying users so can currently be ignored), but actual e-mail addresses, including ones that could now have e-mails forwarded to, can be kept private. There is little information about this at the moment, even on the Facebook newsroom."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Facebook Ending "@facebook.com" Email System | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 27 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by space_in_your_face on Wednesday February 26 2014, @09:20AM

    by space_in_your_face (224) on Wednesday February 26 2014, @09:20AM (#7213)

    It's easy enough to filter out every message sent to foobar@facebook.com.

    But it's interesting this news come just a few days after the Whatsapp acquisition... For me it looks like a move away from an open standard (e-mail) to a closed system (Whatsapp).

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=4, Overrated=1, Total=6
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   5  

  • (Score: 1) by isostatic on Wednesday February 26 2014, @09:23AM

    by isostatic (365) on Wednesday February 26 2014, @09:23AM (#7214) Journal

    Is it really? When foobar@facebook.com has been BCCed?

    You're filtering based on message headers, which is hardly "easy" to the typical person on typical software (gmail, outlook/exchange)

    • (Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26 2014, @09:55AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26 2014, @09:55AM (#7221)

      If the message makes it to your inbox, just flag it as spam and your system will learn. My 75 years old mother can do it, even without knowing what a header is.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26 2014, @11:27AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 26 2014, @11:27AM (#7234)

        ...trust me, sonny, yo' mama knows what a header is....

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by MrGuy on Wednesday February 26 2014, @11:44AM

    by MrGuy (1007) on Wednesday February 26 2014, @11:44AM (#7238)

    It would be even easier to simply have a profile switch to allow people to decide whether to forward @facebook.com or not. You can even default it to "on."

    Also, to your point, the really interesting thing is the light this casts on the WhatsApp acquisition. I'm not so interested in "open system to closed system." What interests me is "betting heavily on people using Facebook as the hub of their communications" when simultaneously realizing "people didn't seem that interested in Facebook being the hub of their communications."

    People didn't jump on @facebook.com for e-mail. Why is "using Facebook's private e-mail-like thing that's not actually email!" a more fertile pitch?