News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS. Parent comment

Re:BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS by andrewstuart2 on Thursday November 03, 2016 @02:47PM (#12866777)
Well, presumably, if the author's last name is Pornin and your spam filter is pretty basic (or overzealous).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS by sjs382 on Thursday November 03, 2016 @03:11PM (#12867011)
"contains some analysis"
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS by isostatic on Thursday November 03, 2016 @03:07PM (#12866973)
I wonder how it would cope with Scunthorpe
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS by jamhan on Thursday November 03, 2016 @06:38PM (#12868699)
Or your name is "Olivia Gray". (True story, corporate mail filter blocked all that person's email)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS by nailer on Friday November 04, 2016 @07:41AM (#12871796)
Why? 50 Shades? Something else?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS by ConroyBumpus on Friday November 04, 2016 @08:55AM (#12872155)
Remove the space from her name and then look for a word in the middle that is commonly associated with spam emails.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS by mcbain on Thursday November 03, 2016 @06:06PM (#12868431)
For anyone unaware: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem
[ Parent | on HN ]