I got a human being at Google to look into my problem and take action after sending a police report to Google‘s legal department certified mail return receipt along with a letter describing how someone was impersonating me and my business using a Gmail address in an attempt to commit fraud.<p>Yes, it was a pain to take all of these steps and it probably took about 3 hours but it was absolutely necessary considering there was no avenue for me to shut down this person otherwise.
Did the letter identify you as a lawyer? I wonder if Google handles it differently if it has a law office letterhead etc.
Wasn't expecting this comment to go far. This took place about a month ago. For those who are interested, here is the address I sent the police report and cover letter to:<p><i>Google LLC<p>Attn: Legal Department – Custodian of Records<p>1600 Amphitheatre Parkway<p>Mountain View, CA 94043</i><p>In the cover letter I outlined the problem and the desired remedy (shut down the gmail account and preserve IP and other information for law enforcement), and attached two other documents: an annotated printout of the email thread from a prospective victim of the scam (who sensed something was fishy and contacted me through my website) and the local police report I filed to document the attempted fraud in my name.<p>Someone at Google contacted me about a week later and confirmed that the account was shut down. I don't know if they did anything else regarding preserving data or shutting down any other Google services this person was using.<p>I also made a report to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center, although TBH it looks like a black hole that lets the feds say they are "doing something" for ordinary victims.
Having worked in compliance engineering I have also reported through the IC3 portal, and spoken with lawyers and analysts who register with FinCEN (which, to be clear, is maybe just a step beyond "My Uncle works at Nintendo...") and I have heard that those reports do get reviewed and often acted on, but yes, you will typically never hear back from them. (FinCEN has its own reporting structure, but we also submitted certain reports through the IC3 portal as well.)
Honestly, the "acted upon" part needs to be highlighted in tangible ways, otherwise people will be suspicious that nothing ever happens to our reports, leading to fewer reports being submitted.<p>During the IC3 reporting process I was asked to submit the name of people behind the scam, if known. I knew one of them because the scammer asked for a wire transfer to a named account at a bank in Oregon. Probably a mule.<p>Does anyone at the FBI or other agencies actually do anything with this information, such as contacting the bank in question or correlating it with other investigations? That's what I would expect if law enforcement were serious about enforcing the laws on the books. But there is no indication that anything happened, other than a confirmation number being spit out on a web page that my report had been received. That's why I made the "black hole" comment earlier.<p>If the IC3 portal highlighted specific cases or stats ("thanks to reports submitted to IC3, n investigations were initiated/suspects charged/convictions secured") that would really help convince ordinary victims that the government is taking tangible steps to fight this scourge of small-scale scams and frauds that affect millions of people every year.
There are strict rules about not talking about open investigations because of so-called "Tipping-off" rules. It can carry some pretty serious penalties - jail time, fines. I agree it would be nice if the FBI itself made some announcements about these sorts of things, and they might do that in aggregate, but if you're a bank or fintech employee and you're in communication with the FBI you absolutely cannot say anything about it. Even confirming that an investigation existed could be penalized.
"Acted upon" in these sorts of bulk data contexts typically means "charge them for an extra count when we pick them up for something else".<p>It's like the internet crimes version of putting the serial number of stolen property in a police report. They ain't looking for it, but they'll use it if it's easy.<p>They aren't dedicating serious resources to speculatively looking at the reports and trying to assess patterns like some TV cop looking at a series of dead hookers and saying "aha we have a serial killer on the loose".
My assumption is that they at least have an intern read them, but only act on reports likely to lead to major cases, for some value of "major" that includes cases where terrorism, large sums of money, or Important People are involved, or more generally cases that could lead to seriously good/bad PR if pursued/ignored.<p><i>De minimis non curat FBI.</i><p>They may also flag certain cases to be passed to other relevant authorities like FinCEN, the Secret Service, the Postal Inspection Service, various military investigative services, or even the intelligence community (assuming NSA doesn't already intercept the mailbox which would be a very reasonable thing to do).
Oh that's a good idea! I got locked out of my YouTube premium account and they kept charging me. Couldn't get in contact with anyone at YouTube because the YT premium support line is behind the YT login. So I had to change my credit card number. Somehow they <i>still</i> kept billing the card, so the credit card company said they'd have to close my account entirely to get Google to stop billing me for a service they wouldn't let me cancel.
That's a built-in thing; Visa, MasterCard, Amex all have updater services that ensure trusted merchants get the replacement card seamlessly. This leads to annoying edge cases like yours.<p><a href="https://stripe.com/resources/more/what-is-a-card-account-updater-what-businesses-need-to-know" rel="nofollow">https://stripe.com/resources/more/what-is-a-card-account-upd...</a><p>You can sometimes ask your bank to issue a card and <i>not</i> ping the updater service, but tier one support tends… not to know about it at all.
You have to realize that once Google flips the bit on you and they think you are trying to scam them (or others via them) you are absolutely dead to them. They don't want to hear from you ever again. You're banned to hell. The fact that a billing system didn't get switched off isn't so surprising; the internal architecture of their systems is so complicated that it would take multiple human lifetimes to explain how it all works.
> The fact that a billing system didn't get switched off isn't so surprising; the internal architecture of their systems is so complicated that it would take multiple human lifetimes to explain how it all works.<p>There was a lawsuit about a decade ago where a company was owed about $500k in ad fraud refunds and Google kept saying they had paid it, it ended up being an incomplete part of their software that had inadvertently withheld $75 million!<p><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/google-emails-adtrader-lawsuit-refund-ad-click-fraud-2019-5" rel="nofollow">https://www.businessinsider.com/google-emails-adtrader-lawsu...</a>
More often than people would like to admit, Google IS the scammer...
Switch to Mercury banking. <a href="https://mercury.com/" rel="nofollow">https://mercury.com/</a><p>You can create as many virtual cards as you want. And surprisingly, I've rarely encountered a vendor that rejects them. I set one up for pretty much every recurring service charge, just because it's so easy to do.<p>It costs a few hundred a year for personal banking, but if you register an LLC (which in MO costs ~$10) you can use your EIN to get a business account. Did
it a couple times, once for my non-profit and once for my consulting LLC.
Are the virtual cards credit cards or hooked up to your account (i.e. debit cards)? there's a big difference. Also, they're not a bank so FDIC insurance and other bank aspects are different. Not what I'd personally use for my long-term savings-oriented finances, but fine for more operational things.
Did you try to demand a charge-back <i>every</i> time?
The idea of a chargeback against Google/Apple/Amazon and their response being a permanent ban of all my accounts is a bit terrifying.
That's an uphill battle, I tried doing that with a gym once who said to cancel, I had to come in only on Tuesday in the morning when the manager was there with a certified notarized cancellation form.
What stopped them from continuing with a new similar Gmail address?
Yes, they could easily spin up another gmail address.<p>The other part of the scam involved sending money to a bank account in Oregon with someone else's name attached to it. I notified the bank in a similar manner and hope they shut it down (not confirmed; my next step is to notify the Oregon banking regulator about the incident).<p>The hope is that once the bank account and gmail account are shut down the scammer will stop or move on. But I am concerned this could be a whack-a-mole problem that doesn't go away.
Motivation I guess
You can't send high volume through new accounts. Usually when a gmail account is being used for real spamming, it's an established one that's been taken over and the spammers are just discharging the accumulated reputation of the account.
> Usually when a gmail account is being used for real spamming, it's an established one that's been taken over<p>My incident is unlikely to be a real account being taken over. The name format was "firstnamelastnameofficial@gmail.com" and I have a somewhat rare name ... probably well under 40 people worldwide with the exact spelling.
I gave up on trying to report abuse to Google, Amazon or Microsoft. It seems reports simply get ignored and the big providers do nothing. I hope the FSF with its weight and media presence can finally do something.<p>Google, Microsoft, and Amazon are my major sources of spam. These days, this is where spam comes from.<p>At this point, they are also too big to block. We allowed this to happen, through neglect and laziness. Even in this discussion: how many people use Gmail as their primary email service?
On YouTube I reported bot accounts for a couple days, the only reaction I got was that at some point it showed a popup that told me too many false reports would lead to a ban. Not sure what Google gets out of it, but there is no way they could be that bad at fighting bots unless they're not even trying. Even trivial tricks like copy-pasted texts keep working.
They're not trying. I've seen an advertiser remain active for months with literally tens of thousands of ads where clicking them directly downloads a malicious exe file that most antivirus scanners flag.
Why would they? Their ad dollars spend the same, and they have no incentive to police it when they are protected by section 230.
We had that issue of someone advertising fake clones of our sites specifically to push fake malware ridden payloads. We only got it handled by bugging internal contacts at Google. It sucked and worse we had to bug them for weeks because the attacker was churning through multiple domains and probably over 100 breached Ad accounts by the time they stopped
They're definitely not trying - in any form. I run a marketplace for dogs (i.e. craigslist for puppies & dogs) and scammers are always trying to post fakes ads. They always use Gmail accounts. Every time I ban a gmail address, they scammers will just get a new one. Same scammer/person has created thousands of gmail accounts and Google doesn't care. I have reported this to Google. For the amount of info Google has on people, trivial for them to prevent some of this.
Tech support scams still?! I don't even understand how this is possible. If Google wanted to they could come up with the tech to bypass the spam/scammers own ghosting system. They must have some kind of invisible Google bot that checks for downloads/scams, right?<p>Phone providers should also be detecting this with AI. There is no way this should be occurring anymore.
They make money on those ads, you’re asking a mega corporation to make less money. Good luck.
Worse, they're actively working to allow malicious activity. Meta made 10% of it's revenue, around $16B from known scams: <a href="https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortune-deluge-fraudulent-ads-documents-show-2025-11-06/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/investigations/meta-is-earning-fortu...</a>
Google makes loads of money through scam ads and fake/AI slop videos. Anyone trying to get in the way of that is putting Google's profits at risk, hence why they shut down legitimate accounts but scammers just run free.
Bot comments and uploads count in KPIs. Blocking/Removing bots = KPIs look worse.
This is called a monopoly. I know people who run their own mail servers to be as independent as possible. Ironically, they show up as spam in Gmail all the time because "This message is similar to messages that were identified as spam in the past." Meanwhile, it's a fucking simple one paragraph message to a programming mailing list. They have to wrestle with DMARK or choose not to as they feel DMARK is playing into the hands of the monopolies giving them too much influence and power over something as simple and fundamental as email.
Not me, but then most people are allergic to paying $10 a month.<p>I figure an email is worth a beer.
Google suspend email accounts that get lots of spam reports. It happens a couple of times a year for salespeople in my company who use Gmass (a bulk email sending tool).<p>I mention it only as a useful data point, and in the absence of anyone else on the thread mentioning that Google have robust email abuse monitoring.
I wouldn't say that's robust email monitoring at all. It's embarassingly bad. Gmass shouldn't exist and your salespeople should be out of a job.
I hope you realise, it does sound like you are suggesting that salespeople in your company are essentially spammers.
So, just to clarify, the salespeople are spamming cold addresses, or are they opted in or existing customers?
I guess you can only report spam through the gmail web interface which the FSF aren't using (because they're not using gmail, for obvious ideological reasons).
> Google have robust email abuse monitoring<p>But only in Gmail then? Where is it possible to report a spam from a Gmail address received on a non-Gmail inbox?<p>Google is being a real PITA as the receiving side for people who try to self-host their mail or who use small providers. They should at least be good citizen on the sending side, which it seems they're not. They are killing email.
<a href="https://support.google.com/mail/contact/abuse" rel="nofollow">https://support.google.com/mail/contact/abuse</a><p>You can use this form<p>>They should at least be good citizen on the sending side, which it seems they're not. They are killing email.<p>Eh? They do tons in anti-bot detection. But the value in exploiting and using Google's service is extremely high so bot authors are increasingly getting creative. Google stops running Gmail and simply another service becomes a high value target.<p>At least Microsoft fixed their Azure abuse after 10 years of not giving a fuck. It used to be stupid fucking easy to setup a trial O365 tenant and spam the fucking internet through "onmicrosoft.com" domains. And they let that go for 10 years.
Spam reporting is pretty standardized? If your email client doesn't support it that's not Google's fault.<p>edit: I might be incorrect on this and was thinking about how unsubscribing is standardized instead.
Standardized how?<p>Basically, there is no standard beyond the ages-old requirement to have abuse@ and postmaster@ email addresses that react to such reports. Which Google doesn't follow at all, you just get redirected to some useless web form which requires a Google account and the sacrifice of a goat.<p>It is entirely Google's fault, and they should be shunned for it and their emails dropped. But unfortunately, they are too big for that by far...
Maybe is thing about Gmail about "This message is spam", that is a Gmail feature not anything standard.<p>Same as Gmail broke IMAP standard, or Gtalk XMPP standard.<p>Google can do whatever they please, they've become the standard of humanity surveillance.
Marking a mail as spam locally is different from spam reporting
I think in this case and all the others.<p>They're not sending emails directly from their gmail address.<p>But they are adding victim emails to other Google services and then Google themselves send them invitations emails.<p>And if you name your service like "Google helpdesk - password reset" or something like that.<p>Invitation email from Google will look very official, but URL in the email will be controlled by the attacker.<p>It's pretty old working technique used for phishing for years now.<p>Spam report does nothing, since you're reporting official Google email.
I have been observing this for the last 2-3 years (4 postfix servers sysadmin)<p>Gmail cannot be whitelisted anymore: spam, phishing,...
On the other hand, if your users redirect twitter or linkedin notifications from their domain to a gmail account, Google claims you are sending too fast and is suspicious (and throttles or blocks ip).<p>Hilarious.
Rhetorical question- but what is it going to take for the IT Community to start treating Gmail and the rest of the "too big to block" as adversarial entities and actually block them for their bad behavior. Pie in the sky I know.
> IT Community<p>No such thing. And if you just want to assign anybody who works in IT to it in order to create the concept of such of a thing, a large percentage of this community would work at Google, a company that depends on Google, or a company that has the same attitude as google.<p>So it's less pie in the sky than nonsense. People don't talk about things changing in the physical world without talking about force, mass and inertia, but when it comes to people, the theory of power just evaporates and we start wishing for things to spontaneously happen because we've declared that they <i>should</i> happen.<p>With some weird definition of "should" which relies on our personal conception of the world. In the physical world, we say something "should" happen when we expect it to happen based on our theories of how the world works. With people we say things "should" happen when we personally want them hard enough.
There <i>was</i> a time before Google when various mailing lists of grumpy sysadmins in key institutions could decide the fate of a new mail sender, internet-wide. But yes that "internet community" is small fry now, and can only cut off their own noses if they don't like Google's mail policies.<p>Before Google, AOL were the previous big-beast mail host, and they did provide some tools to help diagnose why you couldn't get through to their users. It still felt like there was more of a balance of power towards the grumpy sysadmins.
Microsoft refuses to deliver legitimate emails to hotmail.com addresses so I tell clients how it is.<p>I’m not jumping through hoops when I’m not doing anything wrong. SPF, DMARC, DKIM, IP address not on a blacklist, and I send zero spam. Only human-written client communications 1:1.<p>So, my clients with hotmail.com addresses don’t get emails from me. I can call them, they can call me.
I was getting spam called constantly every 5 minutes (blocked by Google call screening) and the attackers made an error if sending a message with their AWS bucket url. I was able to submit an abuse report to Amazon and puff Amazon dismantled the entire spam group. No more spam since then.<p>Maybe try saying the spam has porn or inappropriate images?
Somewhat related to spam coming from Google servers, maybe someone can shed some light on what could be the motivation behind this activity:<p>In recent months I'm seeing instances where random personal mail accounts on a server I run would receive a barrage of mail in a short amount of time.<p>Mail seems to be bounced via Google Groups - they are sent from Google's IPs and have headers like X-Google-Group-Id, List-*, etc. all pointing to Google Groups. The actual group ID changes after each individual instance of this. However when I actually check e.g. the List-Archive URL, the group appears to be already been deleted.<p>The content of mail looks like it originates from various (legit-looking) random public web services, support requests, issue trackers, web contact forms etc. For example, a common reoccurring one is Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (as in something like "thank you for filing a document #123 with us").<p>No apparent phishing links, no attached malware, no short advertisements snuck into a text field etc. Just automated replies from "noreply@"-type addresses.<p>It does not seem to be the case of trying to hide another attack (as discussed here for example: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47609882">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47609882</a>) - over many instances I've not seen any other malicious activity. And this mail is filtered out easily enough based on Google's headers.<p>It all looks like there is some bot that a) creates a Google group and subscribes (one or more) random email addresses to a Google group and then b) enters the group's mail address into a bunch of random web forms that then send their automated responses to the group.<p>What could be the motivation for this? After the fact it's filtered pretty easily based on headers. It's not nearly enough volume to DoS the server. But why would someone go through the trouble of setting this up?
This is almost certainly subscription bombing / email bombing. The goal is to flood someone's inbox with hundreds of legitimate-looking automated emails so they miss a real one - typically a password reset confirmation, a purchase receipt, or a "new device login" alert. The actual attack is happening on some other service where the victim has an account. The fact that you don't see it on your server doesn't mean much, the target is the victim's primary inbox elsewhere.
Yes. I got the same issue… and when someone replies, all users in the mailing list receive it… that’s why I would see a ton of replies saying please remove me from your mailing list. Very annoying. The only solution I found was to create an inbox rule to reject those, as I couldn’t unsubscribe
The headers actually contain an unsubscribe email address that actually works.<p>The format is something like googlegroups-manage+{groupName}+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<p>Just send an email there and they stop coming (for that list).<p>Source: I was getting spam like this, a fellow victim did some tests and confirmed that it stopped the onslaught of messages.
I just block the group address on the MTA, but it doesn't matter. In all instances so far when it came to my attention the group was already deleted. Next time they will use a different group and I don't want to blanket ban all Google Group mail for my users.<p>It's not even that much of a hassle. What worries me is that I don't understand why someone would go through the trouble of doing this for no apparent benefit. I hope I'm not somehow unknowingly enabling some sort of an attack on any of the entities sending these automated replies.
gmail, outlook and salesforce create about 90% of the spam that gets through blacklists. Salesforce is simple to fix: I just block anything from salesforce from our network, as it just seems to be 100% used by spammers. Gmail and outlook are the major problem, as there is no way of addressing their spam issue.
In my experience, everyone got their act together except Google. I also used to receive massive amounts of spam from Azure and Sendgrid but this eventually stopped. Now 80% of the spam I receive is from the Google network, mainly Google Cloud.
You mean you receive unsigned email from a VPS in Google Cloud?
> In my experience, everyone got their act together except Google.<p>I remember a bunch of spam and fishing emails from weird Outlook addresses. Don't remember any from Google.
Why do you interpret that as everyone except Google getting their act together?<p>The obvious (and correct) explanation is deliverability. Spammers send from Google services because they can inbox, they don’t send from other services because those services will not inbox successfully.
Yeah, Salesforce clearly has some kind of whitelisting at Gmail. I get so much nonsense from that domain.
Add Mailchimp in there as well. I have never gotten an email from someone using Mailchimp that was not spam.
Although they does have proper abuse policies and do take action against spammers. I don't get any spam from them (except perhaps the very occasional one), and I know businesses that use mailchimp and similar services for valid marketing (to previous customers). Just looking through my received mailbox, I see many legitimate emails from mailchimp.<p>I'm not denying that they are sometimes used by spammers, but they are definitely a legitimate operation that takes action against spammers if you report them.
Unfortunately, the only thing that would work is to hire a bot service that would report the offending account en masse.
Google took over email when they reject legitimate emails sent by small email vendors and at the same time sending this much spam.
I'm getting a lot, and I mean A LOT, spam recently from various "<IP in reverse notation>.bc.googleusercontent.com" domains. Not sure what can be done about that. But the uptick is very noticeable.
Anyone interested in creating a CommunityEmailAlliance. Like dkim but with blocks on corporate email systems that allow spamming?
I’m old enough to remember when the FSF said that blocking spam was censorship. Good to see them wake up.
It seems weird that Google wouldn't have some kind of observability alert on outgoing email. 10k emails per week is a lot.
I'm not sure it actually is. Free Gmail is limited to 500 emails a day, but Workspace accounts are allowed up to 2000, so this this spammer has to be using a Workspace account.<p>I've worked at a start up where the marketing team just had a `marketing@startup.com` email that was just like any other email in Google Workspace and used that for all marketing communications. Eventually they bumped up against that limit and a couple of engineers had to help them troubleshoot and there were enough blog and stack overflow posts at the time about hitting the limit to make make me think what they were doing wasn't uncommon.<p>When you consider the scale of Gmail and that this is almost certainly a Workspace account so they're mixed in with business customers, I'm not sure how much of an anomaly 10k emails a week actually is.
What if someone (Google) used Google suite to send 10k emails to fire people. Wouldn’t that be considered normal for the server for a day let alone a week. Yes I know I could have come up with a better example.
ye olde corporate reply to all bomb .. no more emails this week everyone, we have used up our quota
Those would be internal so I'm not sure they'd even count against your quota.
10k outgoing emails per week it NOT a lot.<p>Just imagine a weekly newsletter with 100k subscribers.
Yeah, you are using the wrong tool if you send your newsletter from a gmail account at that scale. You can get away with a few tens of people, perhaps a few hundreds.<p>Above that threshold you should use tools like moosend, benchmarkemail, or similar. And they ask a pretty penny when you reach that scale.
You can’t send bulk newsletters from gmail/outlook.
Well, you can't directly, but you can use SMTP, which you can plug into any garden-variety spamming tool as long as it supports that.
It may not be a single email, they might be using many throwaway accounts.
someone hooked up their web app to Google Workspace email and the web app got pwned.<p>Google Workspace email is very generous with the kind of outgoing email you can send via their SMTP servers.
I wonder if this has to do with the massive number of google calendar invites I’ve been getting as payment/billing notifications lately.<p>I’ve not been reporting them because I already know they aren’t valid and do not google’s work for them
Anyone getting hit with (Google) AppSheet-originating recruitment emails? Very well done. Imitating the biggest US brands.<p>Have reported AppSheet to FCC after seeing Google wasn't doing enough--same scam email format, same inbox-landing pathway, but still irked.<p>Also try forwarding the emails to the phishing emails of the misrepresented brands, when they have an address for it. Figure they're the ones who have any power.
I thought they fixed that spam method a while ago
I haven't seen that ooe lately. I currently get lots of Nortoon Lifelock invoices with hundreds of addresses in the to field.<p>I always report them with suggestions they teach their AI that invoices sent to large number of addresses are phishing.
we received several this week, so apparently not
It honestly is a bit dissapointing that most of the internet's "infrastructure" is tied up in large corporations that just get money for free by being the only provider and face little to no backlash (because of their monopoly) when they neglect things like basic customer service.
Gmail is free. How much customer support resources should someone reasonably expect a company to dedicate towards their free-of-charge services?
Increasingly of the opinion that "free service with no support that's structurally essential for an economy" is some kind of trap. Possibly just the most comfortable kind of trap, a local optimum from which it's difficult to escape.<p>This is starting to become important as countries (very unwisely!) start tying things like national ID and banking to smartphones.
I don't know if it's that simple. As a litmus test, try to set up your own mail server. See how many milliseconds it takes for it to be blacklisted by gmail. And then observe the response time for their support, when you try to clear up the confusion that google has about your intentions.
I run my own mail server, not blacklisted. Now I'm a bit of a special case, I know mail <i>well.</i><p>But when a moderately technical colleague wanted to do the same, I told her to use Mox, she set it up and Gmail doesn't block her either.<p>So... would you please elaborate?
I've built mail servers before Gmail existed that lasted long enough to get blacklisted by Gmail.<p>Fixing it was always pretty simple -- or at least, non-mysterious. They'd bounce some things, I'd look at the headers of the bounced messages, and therein were links to instructions there that showed how to resolve whatever issue it was this year.<p>Just follow the steps, implement the new thing, and stuff started flowing again in rather short order. Not so bad.<p>IIRC, the only time it ever cost us any money was when the RBLs started keeping track of dynamic IP pools and we needed to finally shift over to something actually-static.
It’s free, but it’s not like they’re running Gmail as a charity, either. It has revenue and contributes to their other businesses.
Google’s support for paying customers isn’t much better unless you’re spending well into the millions per year.<p>AWS, on the other hand has proven willing to move mountains for me as a $15/mo customer.
If it didn't provide value it wouldn't exist.<p>Maybe it's only legacy, but gmail brings customers to Google and their related services. Escalation then brings them on as paying Customers. As loss leader may make a loss if looked at in a bubble, but if looked at as part of the "Customer Lifecycle" then other areas of profit would likely be much smaller without the free gateway.<p>It takes me active resistance to avoid Google's paid services, and I'm staunchly independent in relatively rare air. The minor capitulation required to turn into a paying Customer would capture a good percentage of their erstwhile-free gmail users (I would think. Yes, conjecture, interested in explanations of alternative theories).
We might not be paying money, but we don't know what happens to our private data.
Maybe it's not used at all, maybe used just internally, maybe could be even sold.
Data of millions of users is very very valuable, even just thinking about how much targeted adverts could be placed with it.
> How much customer support resources should someone reasonably expect<p>Zero. OTOH, since I'm sure they are training on emails and archiving/profiling everything forever even if we delete messages.. those constant threats to become a paying customer before hitting some arbitrary small quota are still villainous
Enough that they're not facilitating abuse.
Gmail shows ads to make money so it is not loss making.
Google Workspace charges money per user (and still offers abysmal support).
Gmail is profitable. How much harm should profitable services be allowed to perpetuate in the world to enable their profit?
> get money for free<p>How do they get money for free? What is stopping everyone else from doing the same?
A monopoly. It's hard for "everyone else" to develop a monopoly today, to suggest otherwise is a ridiculous assertion.
Gmail is not a monopoly. When it comes to actual paying customers, it is not even the market leader<p>> ridiculous assertion.<p>What is ridiculous is the idea that running an email service a massive scale like Gmail is somehow <i>free</i>.
> Gmail is not a monopoly.<p><a href="https://pdx.social/@evergreensewing/116388477430172491" rel="nofollow">https://pdx.social/@evergreensewing/116388477430172491</a><p>> For the first time since we started the company back in January/February, we have a customer who does NOT use Gmail for their email address.<p>> In case you wanted to see what a monopoly looks like.
This is anecdotal but here's the breakdown of top 10 e-mail providers from my database, does not look like a monopoly:<p><pre><code> MariaDB > SELECT SUBSTRING_INDEX(email, '@', -1) AS domain, COUNT(*) AS cnt FROM accounts GROUP BY domain HAVING domain != '' ORDER BY cnt DESC LIMIT 10;
+-------------+-------+
| domain | cnt |
+-------------+-------+
| hotmail.com | 38015 |
| gmail.com | 16280 |
| yahoo.com | 4080 |
| o2.pl | 2321 |
| wp.pl | 2206 |
| live.com | 1415 |
| outlook.com | 814 |
| interia.pl | 609 |
| hotmail.es | 590 |
| live.se | 521 |
+-------------+-------+
10 rows in set (0.044 sec)</code></pre>
Most people use Gmail because they want to, not because they have to. It's a free, superior product. Pretending voluntary preference is a monopoly is nonsense, but it is a very Mastodon-brained take.
It's a figure of speech. I am not saying it is literally free. I'm being facitious. What I mean is they get money overwhelmingly because of their position in advertising and through android that essentially allows them to never worry about losing users. Who is going to going to attempt to delete their google account over poor customer service? You literally cannot access half of the internet today without a Google account.
Try running your own SMTP server for a while. Gmail holds what appears to be monopoly power and uses it quite readily. Even ISPs with "free" customer email addresses aren't nearly as onerous as google is.
There is a common misapprehension that the term "monopoly" can only be used when there a single supplier.<p>Quoting <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly</a> : "In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge overly high prices, which is associated with unfair price raises."<p>Or from Milton Freedman, "Monopoly exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it". <a href="https://archive.org/details/capitalismfreedo0000frie/page/120/mode/2up?q=%22monopoly+exists%22" rel="nofollow">https://archive.org/details/capitalismfreedo0000frie/page/12...</a><p>In the post-Borkian interpretation of monopoly, adored by the rich and powerful because it enables market concentration which would otherwise be forbidden, consumer price is the main measure of control, hence free services can never be a monopoly.<p>Scholars have long pointed out Bork's view results from a flawed analysis of the intent of the Sherman Antitrust act. For example, Sherman wrote "If we would not submit to an emperor, we should not submit to an autocrat of trade, with <i>power to prevent competition</i> and to fix the price of any commodity.” (Emphasis mine. Widely quoted, original transcript at p2457 of <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bound-congressional-record/1890/03/21/21/senate-section/article/2454-2474?hl=%22we+should+not+submit+to+an+autocrat+of+trade%22&s=1&r=4" rel="nofollow">https://www.congress.gov/bound-congressional-record/1890/03/...</a> ). Freedman makes a similar point (see above) that a negative effect of a monopoly is to reduce access to alternatives.<p>One well-known rejection of the Borkian view is in Lina Khan "Amazon's Antitrust Paradox" paper. <a href="https://yalelawjournal.org/pdf/e.710.Khan.805_zuvfyyeh.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://yalelawjournal.org/pdf/e.710.Khan.805_zuvfyyeh.pdf</a><p>In it she quotes Robert Pitofsky in "The Political Content of Antitrust":<p>"A third and overriding political concern is that if the free-market sector of the economy is allowed to develop under antitrust rules that are blind to all but economic concerns, the likely result will be an economy so dominated by a few corporate giants that it will be impossible for the state not to play a more intrusive role in economic affairs"<p>(I can't find a copy of that source online, but you can see the quote at <a href="https://archive.org/details/traderegulationc0005pito/mode/2up?q=%22third+and+overriding+political+concern%22" rel="nofollow">https://archive.org/details/traderegulationc0005pito/mode/2u...</a> where Pitofsky rejects viewing antitrust law through an exclusively economic lens.)<p>Even if you support the Borkian interpretation, you should still worry about the temptation for the US government to "play a more intrusive role" with GMail accounts. I strongly doubt Google will follow Lavabit's lead and shut down email should the feds come by with a gag order to turn over the company's private keys.<p>In the name of national security, of course.
They aren't a monopoly, and especially not a monopoly on emails.<p>How did we get to the point where there can be 12 services, but the one with lots of customers is a "Monopoly". Its a complete destruction of the word. They aren't killing their competitors, nor making it illegal to compete. Yeah its harder in the current era to run your own mail server, for a variety of reasons involving spam. But can we just cut the shit on calling literally every company with more than 100 employees a Monopoly?
>How do they get money for free?<p>market power<p>>What is stopping everyone else from doing the same?<p>see above
Advertising and eyeballs, I'd assume
Send DMCA takedown, that's only thing big companies seem to react. Without checking validity of it of course
I wonder if they do not take this kind of thank that seriously so to encourage the paid tier for storage. I am teetering nearer my end to the free, mostly from all the emails over the years.
I'm reporting every spamm mail that I get through Gmail from Gmail accounts but it doesn't seem to help!
Lately I've been using SpamCop.net to make spam reports. It seems to work, and it's free. You are encouraged to donate, and they don't ask for much.<p>It's not perfect though. For some reason, it doesn't find (or deliberately ignores) OVH hosts that are relaying spam.
I've been using SpamCop for years (decades?) but lately I've been wondering if they're still relevant.<p>One example: they seem to have a size limit of 50KB when you report a spam mail via their web form. I've received quite some spam that exceeds that because they use base64 encoding of the body, add non-visible filler content to drown out the actual spam/phishing message, etc.<p>SpamCop suggests to cut off the message and still process it but then they miss e.g. the link to the phishing website and thus they can't send out a report for that.<p>Speaking of phishing links: a lot of the phishing mails I receive, link to some account on storage.googleapis.com. I've seen mails with links to the same account for weeks on end before they switch to a different one, implying that these links remain online for a long time. You would think that marking such mails as phishing in GMail (they are already flagged as spam) would get them on some kind of radar but apparently not...
(I haven't run my own mail-server in a while. It's getting harder and harder.)<p>Are the real-time-blackhole lists still a thing?<p>If they're regularly allowing spam and not responding to reports in any sort of timely manner, possibly they should be reported to those.<p>Not going to work though, is it. Too big to fail <i>shouldn't</i> be a thing. It's not like you can't be flexible about it or give them some room to deal with it within corporate policy; but they do need to deal with it, right?<p>Realistically, I think some companies have outgrown the size where internet can still self-regulate them. You'd hurt yourself more than gmail.<p>This either needs laws or new game theory.<p>Or -you know- deprecate the current email system. I know that's a perennial proposal; but that's because every year it gets even more broken in even more interesting ways. It's patch-on-patch-on-patch at the moment. Just spinning up sendmail on a random box won't quite cut it anymore, if you want to participate.
Crazy that you can even send that sort of volume from a gmail acc
Google removed humans, so ... anyone able to contact real people at Google?
Spammer must be a whale spending untold amounts on other Google services.
Had Google trying to send me mails to non-existing mail-addresses over months. You would think their logs might catch something like that or they would react to my complaints ... they don't and they just dont care.<p>It sometimes stops for weeks, then it continiues.<p>from my logs as an example:
Nov 13 22:10:51 bert postfix/smtpd[2693931]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from mail-oi1-x248.google.com[2607:f8b0:4864:20::248]: 450 4.1.8 <ki+bncBD77RLFFQACRBZOX3DEAMGQEU5V3LXY@zf.thesparklebar.com>: Sender address rejected: Domain not found; from=<ki+bncBD77RLFFQACRBZOX3DEAMGQEU5V3LXY@zf.thesparklebar.com> to=<rmayer13@nerd-residenz.de> proto=ESMTP helo=<mail-oi1-x248.google.com>
Nov 13 22:12:07 bert postfix/smtpd[2696594]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from mail-ua1-x948.google.com[2607:f8b0:4864:20::948]: 450 4.1.8 <ki+bncBD77RLFFQACRBZOX3DEAMGQEU5V3LXY@zf.thesparklebar.com>: Sender address rejected: Domain not found; from=<ki+bncBD77RLFFQACRBZOX3DEAMGQEU5V3LXY@zf.thesparklebar.com> to=<rmayer1000@nerd-residenz.de> proto=ESMTP helo=<mail-ua1-x948.google.com>
Nov 13 22:12:18 bert postfix/smtpd[2696594]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from mail-wm1-x346.google.com[2a00:1450:4864:20::346]: 450 4.1.8 <ki+bncBDO2ZDH5DIIOXB6ZZADBUBFIYC6HQ@zf.thesparklebar.com>: Sender address rejected: Domain not found; from=<ki+bncBDO2ZDH5DIIOXB6ZZADBUBFIYC6HQ@zf.thesparklebar.com> to=<rmayer13@nerd-residenz.de> proto=ESMTP helo=<mail-wm1-x346.google.com>
Nov 13 22:12:37 bert postfix/smtpd[2696594]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from mail-lf1-x146.google.com[2a00:1450:4864:20::146]: 450 4.1.8 <ki+bncBDO2ZDH5DIIOXB6ZZADBUBFIYC6HQ@zf.thesparklebar.com>: Sender address rejected: Domain not found; from=<ki+bncBDO2ZDH5DIIOXB6ZZADBUBFIYC6HQ@zf.thesparklebar.com> to=<rmayer333@nerd-residenz.de> proto=ESMTP helo=<mail-lf1-x146.google.com>
Nov 13 22:13:08 bert postfix/smtpd[2696594]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from mail-lj1-x248.google.com[2a00:1450:4864:20::248]: 450 4.1.8 <hc+bncBDO2ZDH5DIIOXB6ZZADBUBB2QEZ74@zf.thesparklebar.com>: Sender address rejected: Domain not found; from=<hc+bncBDO2ZDH5DIIOXB6ZZADBUBB2QEZ74@zf.thesparklebar.com> to=<rmayer@nerd-residenz.de> proto=ESMTP helo=<mail-lj1-x248.google.com>
Nov 13 22:13:08 bert postfix/smtpd[2696594]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from mail-wm1-x345.google.com[2a00:1450:4864:20::345]: 450 4.1.8 <ki+bncBDO2ZDH5DIIOXB6ZZADBUBFIYC6HQ@zf.thesparklebar.com>: Sender address rejected: Domain not found; from=<ki+bncBDO2ZDH5DIIOXB6ZZADBUBFIYC6HQ@zf.thesparklebar.com> to=<rmayerrmayer@nerd-residenz.de> proto=ESMTP helo=<mail-wm1-x345.google.com>
Nov 13 22:14:03 bert postfix/smtpd[2696594]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from mail-lj1-x248.google.com[2a00:1450:4864:20::248]: 450 4.1.8 <ki+bncBDO2ZDH5DIIOXB6ZZADBUBFIYC6HQ@zf.thesparklebar.com>: Sender address rejected: Domain not found; from=<ki+bncBDO2ZDH5DIIOXB6ZZADBUBFIYC6HQ@zf.thesparklebar.com> to=<rmayera@nerd-residenz.de> proto=ESMTP helo=<mail-lj1-x248.google.com><p>As you can see, the to-address is generated and its different hosts at google trying to send mails.<p>Searching for zf.thesparklebar.com shows others having the same problem.
Ah yes, the tried and true method of getting into contact with someone at google: sending a blast to social media for an actual human, because Google literally makes it impossible to talk to anyone at all. Worst customer support in all of tech.
Good luck. These big tech companies have no incentive to care about support or really anything that isn’t tied directly to making money. And unless you have a friend there, Google staff have no incentive either. Solving this won’t help with their promotions.
> Google staff have no incentive either. Solving this won’t help with their promotions.<p>I don't think people appreciate that this is really the key observation here. In large institutions, for anything significant to happen, there have to be incentives and alternatives, and these are set by management. Management in turn usually cares about their incentives, and the company overall mostly cares about the bottom line and the financial reports.<p>As a result, this is unlikely to get addressed, unless there is significant pressure, like media coverage, people mass-resigning from Gmail, or major email servers blocking Google. But none of these are likely to happen.
I think there are lots of people that will see this story that either work at google or know someone who does, and I bet it will lead to their issue getting fixed. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
It would help if they provided literally any way for a squeaky wheel to squeak at them aside from squeaking at the employees with a modicum of dignity (if they still exist)
Based on how much zendesk spam there is i doubt it.
Cynicism helps no one.
Contact a human person at Google, one who can actually do something about a ticket? I also have a good selection of bridges for sale!
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
Maybe they should try getting a paid Google Workspace subscription /s
Having a workspace subscription still doesn't get you a human to talk to.
This is a plausible explanation based on the amount of fraud tolerated in other parts of their business. But it's probably going to cost you more than one Workspace subscription.
[flagged]