MyTemp.email – Temporary Disposable Email
mytemp.email
mytemp.email
In the case of this website, I have to open up a new tab and go here first, note the random email name generated to me, put it in the signup box, and maybe tab back and click a confirmation link mailed to the inbox.
Sure, it's a bit nitpicky, but I see no direct improvement made on existing services for my particular use case. If I need a "private inbox" for a website signup, I probably care enough to use my own personal email.
Also, if you just need quick access to a site, you probably don't even need to make an account. Just go to the 'forgot my password' page and put in sitename@mailinator.com - someone may have previously created an account through mailinator, you can just grab the new password in the email and sign in :)
If companies didn't use dark patterns (such as subscribing you automatically to newsletters when you purchase something), people wouldn't need to use disposable email addresses.
Plus addressing and filters are free and every email provider I'm aware of has them. If newsletters bother you that much, there are options other than a service designed for abuse.
Doing MX lookups was annoying so we solved our problem another way. We managed to cut out virtually all abuse without appreciably affecting conversion. It just sucks we had to leave behind the few that legitimately wanted to trial without a CC on file (although if they contacted us, we were happy to oblige). And it sucks we had to spend engineering effort trying to deal with abuse, almost all of it originating from a single, well-known provider (Mailinator) -- not the best use of time for a bootstrapped company.
I guess the next stage in this vicious cycle is a service that gives out free credit card numbers that can authorize but can't be charged (or maybe just a stolen CC database).
edit - Clarified some points due to inadvertently submitting early.
You can't stop abuse against a time-based trial, so why use a time-based trial?
I don't know your business, but you should consider designing an unlimited trial instead, if your service is good most people will eventually pay for it, or even better, someone else will pay on behalf of them.
A prime example is Dropbox, when you purchase specific phone models you get extra storage, the user didn't pay for that storage, but someone else did (most likely the company who is selling the phone).
We tried all sorts of things with the trial over our 5 year tenure. Way too much time went into dealing with abuse. In our case, it was a visual web testing service. When someone is abusing the service, another person can't use those browsers. Adding more machines might be scalable if you've raised money, but if you're bootstrapping (as we were) there's a very real ceiling to what you can afford. We were running well above the capacity needed for legitimate usage, at our expense, and still had problems stemming from Mailinator traffic.
Maybe other companies have a different experience and Mailinator users turn into loyal, paying customers. In our case, they did nothing but waste resources (both computing and human). And in 5 years, not a single one turned into a paying customer, yet many were happy to leech over extended periods of time (we could see the sites being tested, so tracking it was fairly straightforward). I admit, it was weird being able to classify one whole source of traffic as simply negative, but we had the data to back it up.
And just to clarify, abuse is being used in two contexts here: 1) people trying to use the service indefinitely without paying for it; and 2) people trying to actually DoS other sites, screw up our browser cluster by firing up pop-ups and print dialogs, and other general scumbaggery.
My point is that when you design a trial, you should look for constraints that are more difficult to abuse, and also more valuable for a user, and definitely "1 month of service" is neither difficult to abuse, nor valuable for a user.
If you found a solution in requiring CC details on signup, it's OK, but that was just a temporary cure to your illness of having a time-limited trial. It's not the fault of mailinator, nor the fault of banks, is the fault of wanting to have one (trial) account per person.
South Korea even takes the extreme approach of requiring social security numbers to guarantee that every account reflects one (korean) person, yet it is trivially easy to find stolen databases of schools and companies, and many forums, especially gaming forums even recommend you to commit identity theft to play an online korean game.
Not even companies like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc. can save themselves from complex abuse techniques like stolen CC's, generated and valid CC's, disposable CC's, etc. You can pretty easily find news about massive DDoS attacks generated from their clouds using these techniques.
Regardless of how much effort you have spent dealing with abuse, if you are only playing wack-a-mole, you are just wasting your time.
I know it is easier said than done, but probably adding a proxy to do throttling, enforce global limits to free users (ex. domain + ip per hour/day), and stopping/reporting DoS attempts would had been a better investment than trying to prevent users from using Mailinator.
And it's not even that Mailinator users would sign up, try it for 30 minutes, and then just move on. In that case, I'd just say they weren't qualified, didn't like the service, didn't find the value prop, whatever. But that's not what happened.
I don't really think the "you're going to get screwed, so just learn how to get screwed" attitude is really appropriate. There have been a few armchair theories on how we should have dealt with the issue. Suffice to say, 10 paragraphs of text here aren't going to enumerate everything we tried. And it's not as if we made no product improvements in that period either.
Simply put: if you don't want to use the service, great. If you don't find it valuable, that's fine too. But no one's taking the high road trying to perennially use a service without paying for it, meanwhile calling it a quality issue.
And none of this is abstract. We tried all sorts of technical solutions. People just found another way to abuse. We slapped the credit card gate up and had not a single Mailinator signup for the 2 years after that. It simply solved the problem. Maybe someone will up the ante with fake credit cards . . . for us, we found thousands of Mailinator users weren't willing to take that step.
In my experience, it is not easier to convert somebody on a trial to paying than it is to convert a non-customer to a paying customer, and your value prop (and the customer's understanding of it) is always the single biggest factor. Obviously, this calculus changes if you're going for an eyeballs-matter model.
Admittedly knowing little about the specifics of your situation, I still would feel comfortable saying the engineering/man-hours effort would probably have been best spent refining the portal and giving customers a greater insight in your value prop.
I think it is important to note that after you took the step of filtering out temp mail using customers, you said the conversion rate was unaffected, said with a positive tone. Unless there are significant marginal costs, this can be hardly be called a win.
As for the conversion rate, it was a positive outcome. I probably should have been clearer that Mailinator users weren't factored into the calculation any more than any other widespread source of spam would have been. Strictly speaking, removing them increased conversion rate because a whole bunch of sign-ups with 0% conversion went away. My point was removing the Mailinator traffic, all other sources continued to convert at nearly the same rate and revenue didn't drop because Mailinator traffic truly wasn't converting anyway.
I'm willing to accept we just had an absolutely terrible business with an absolutely terrible business model and an absolutely terrible product. But if that's the case, why would so many people come from Mailinator and repeatedly use it?
And don't give me that nonsense that I can enable my spam filter either. By the same argument you can implement DDOS protection so don't worry about the botnet.
Again, if you just want to avoid a newsletter, great. Try the service and move on if you don't like it. Using that as an excuse to abuse a service is the mental leap I can't make and I don't get how it's even defensible. If you really care about services like Mailinator, the abuse is something you should care about because companies will just keep making it harder to use your email hiding service of choice.
http://mailinator.blogspot.com/2014/10/mailinator-launches-p...
http://mailinator.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/how-mailinator-comp...
I sometimes use mailinator too.
I'd say "it works if you make sure that no legitimate mail will lack a +", but some sites fail horribly when there's a + in your address. (I once got stuck in a situation where the "new account" form on a site accepted the + version, but their login form (based on email address) didn't.)
Our startup has a "free report" where we analyze a single page and dependent resources for ~420 front-end performance issues. We believe that this has value. For that free report, we ask for a valid email address, so we can send you 1 email, from an actual person, to ask what you thought of the findings and to offer to answer any questions. That's it. You get something, we get something.
Now, I understand that 1st time users can't/don't know if our free report value, so they don't want to give us something you consider valuable in return. But using a temporary email to get peek at value from me is a dick move.
1000 people rush to tell me: "But if you service has value then people will come back and [blah blah blah]".
Well, you have a gut feel and I have 4 years of data. And we have had 0 temp email providers ever want to talk with us. Clearly we provide value, because we have a number of large customers in the retail and media spaces. What I've learned is the type of person who uses a temp email provider doesn't see the value that our customers do. They don't fit our customer model, so we don't spend time or energy on them, and importantly money/resources on them. Instead we filter the major temp email providers and display a message explaining our email policy, and ask them to use a real email address. People can get around it, but it raises the bar and explains our position, which is really the only thing I can do.
Jerk companies have created an environment that is tarnishes everyone, and that is depressing as hell.
A disposable email address feel like "I don't trust you, go away, you are not allowed to talk to me". Great. I understand, and being selective with your trust is good. But I'm not some random person walking up to you on the street and saying "give me your email address". You came to me, and you are asking me to give you something (in this case, an analysis of your website's front-end performance issues). In return, I at least want the opportunity for my email to rot in a place that might actually get your attention :-)
The vast majority of spam is bots who just randomly send mail at domains, or bots who scraped my email address from my website. That's a much bigger source of spam for me, so don't fret too much about your service.
That said, people whose unsubscribe links aren't one click should get multiple papercuts, especially if their email settings are managed behind the account password I've long forgotten. I send those to spam with glee.
I have never used Mailnesia but I remember reading about a service like this (may have been this one) and I wanted to add it here in the comments for anyone who missed it.
That means random people cannot get into the email and people are unlikely to be able to 'forgot my password' on the account you created.
I see that as a nice advantage over the other services if that is true.
That said: http://cleanli.st
An API (beta) to validate email addresses. It knows and dynamically detects thousands of dispoable email domains (including all mailinator domains).
I've probably been using it for a decade now. Wonderful service.
Is your current setup MANY->TO->ONE?
Edit: Scratch that, it's not a new site.