b8f27694d995a03cf27ee448f772358e653ec660 — Moritz Poldrack 2 months ago d42c861
add post about corporate emails
A content/blog/email-hell.md => content/blog/email-hell.md +302 -0
@@ 0,0 1,302 @@
title: "Welcome to email hell"
description: "How corporate makes something I enjoy into something I despise."
date: 2024-01-29
type: "post"
tags: ['rant', 'email']

I like emails. I know, shocker. The guy working on an email client[^1] likes
emails. Worse than that, I have formed some habits that I would call "best
practice", rather than a habit. Among these are the use of plaintext email,
using maildir to always have a backup, and signing outgoing mails.

I even went so far as to call myself an "expert" in [an article on how to make
email less painful][tk-expert] (article in German). Depending on one's
definition of the word "expert", I probably don't even remotely qualify for
that label, but I certainly know more than the average Joe. Or at least I'd
like to tell myself that I do.

To my intense displeasure, I am now working in an environment where the role of
email admin would be better filled by a trained monkey or a toddler sucking its
toes. Since I can now report on over a year of corporate mailing, I have now
reached a bit of a breaking point where I just need to vent for a bit. If you
find any of this inaccurate, feel free to enlighten me. Maybe I don't know of
an important consideration that goes into these decisions.

## The good

The mail system has an uptime of about 100%. Awesome! Good job!

Also: mandatory and unannounced phishing drills. That's quite a nice thing.
Though it would be nice if the difficulty would exceed Nigerian prince levels.

## The slightly annoying

Mail being mail, there are bound to be some annoyances. The favourite
IMAP-extension isn't available, or some configuration I disagree with. These
issues are more differences of opinion or easy to work around.

### No IMAP

Is IMAP the perfect protocol? Certainly not. With more extensions bolted to it
than there are sand grains on the average beach, there is no shortage of
potential sources for issues. So what's the solution? Exactly: disabling IMAP
entirely and only allowing Exchange access. Thanks to [DavMail][davmail], this
is at least easy to work around and makes me able to keep a maildir for bad

If I don't split my head open by smashing it on the table at the abhorrent API
"design", the long-awaited OWA (Outlook Web Application) Worker for
[aerc][aerc] could at least potentially alleviate the pain.

### Mandatory top-posting

To give a famous example:

- A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
- Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

If you want to learn how best to use something, it's a great idea to ask people
using a technology extensively. For email, this would probably be mailing
lists. Thousands of mails make their way into mailing lists every day and over
the decades a few patterns have emerged on [how to do it best][list-etiquette].

One thing that is omnipresent in these lists is [what Wikipedia
calls][wikipedia-interleaved-posting] "interleaved style". Here one would take
the parts of the original message that are actually relevant for the reply and
would quote them directly and reply directly. While the original mail would be
something like:

- Q1: Do you like emails?
- Q2: Even in a corporate context?

The reply would be:

- \> Q1: Do you like emails?
- A: Yes, very much. It's a great way of communicating asynchronously!
- \> Q2: Even in a corporate context?
- A: No, that is so shitty, it should get an entirely different name.

Top posting would make this into a very readable:

- A: Yes, very much. It's a great way of communicating asynchronously!
- A: No, that is so shitty, it should get an entirely different name.
- \> Q1: Do you like emails?
- \> Q2: Even in a corporate context?

My german teacher would've had a good time with something like this. Just put a
red line next to it, write "Structure?" and don't even bother reading this

### Legally non-binding fluff

This mail may contain confdential bla bla bla. Aside from this disclaimer being
annoying, it's also legally not binding (not only according to German
law[^2]<sup>&</sup>[^3], similar conclusions have been drawn in the US as well
and other countries are probably also rather opposed to forcing one-sided
obligations onto people without their consent)

I get that companies want to ensure that they are not liable, but this just
isn't the way.[^4] Apart from relying on a potentially uncooperative 3rd party
to do your bidding, you also look like you don't have a basic grasp on logic.
Even if those disclaimers were worth the bits they are composed of, you should
probably put them *before* the potentially confidential information. Otherwise
it's not much different from asking them to neuralise themselves.

### Capitalised Localpart

Isn't it lovely to have a capitalised localpart? Moritz@Poldrack.dev[^5] beautiful!
To be honest, my word of choice would be: annoying. I don't give a flying fuck
what your address looks like. You can add a name to be displayed in the message
list. Maybe use that? Capitalisation [leads to
problems][capitalisation-problem], but it also adds the following benefits:

- <!-- intentionally left blank -->

Don't do it. The user doesn't care, the recipient doesn't care. Maybe a manager
cares, but for that, might I refer you to [my post on that topic][no-managers]?

## The bad

From annoying and minor inconveniences, the transition to outright bad is
flowing. Taken for themselves, these are no deal breakers. But adding them
together these explain at least some of the bite-marks on my table.

### No folders

While the notmuch users among us may tilt their heads, not having folders (or
mailboxes, or whatever you want to call them) is a great way to get a messy
inbox. While notmuch has this solved through what I would call "virtual" or
"dynamic" folders with its powerful tagging system, the other systems rely on
more static folders to bring structure into the chaos. Even the most basic
"mail-silo" usually has a "Sent" Folder.

Now there are plans to drop these in favour of a direct uplink to the mail
archive system. Awesome. Less structure. Just what I need to say "sorry, I
didn't see your mail. There was too much on top of it." Whoever had this idea,
if you read this: I hope your sleeves roll down while you're washing your

### No signing allowed

I sign my mails. Crazy right? I can't deny having sent something, I can be sure
nobody has modified what I sent, and even if IT used my outbox to send out
phishing training mails, users could[^6] immediately see: "Hey, that message is
suspicious. Usually they have this badge next to them." But during my attempts
to get the next point alleviated I was told in no uncertain terms "don't sign
your mails, we don't do that here". Well, if you don't value your employer's
(and employee's) safety, who am I to object.

No, I am not pissed. Why would I? After all I managed that certificate myself,
so they had exactly zero work with me signing my mails.

### Mail Provider for managers

I am a backend dev by trade. I do occasionally dip my toes into the scary world
of web design. What this leads to, is what you're witnessing right now: A
website that is most certainly not concerned with being the most pretty. Of
course, I am aware that a Windows 98 style isn't exactly ideal for selling a
product. So I don't blame companies for making their websites polished and
pretty. It is however a great way to see if a provider values style over

The provider at my employer uses
<a href="https://www.hornetsecurity.com/en/" rel="nofollow">Hornetsecurity</a>,
a provider I consider so subpar, I manually wrote the link, so I would not give
them any SEO boost. However small my influence may be.

Personal pain point is their equation of PGP, S/MIME, and… TLS?! What the
actual fuck. Yes, TLS is a kind of encryption. But not all encryption is made
equal. PGP and S/MIME are End-to-End encryption and thus on an entirely
different level. But hey, why not just sign our mails *on the server*. If your
toenails are not currently curling up from that sentence, allow me to explain:
The added value of a signature is *that it is made by the client*. You have a
confirmation that the mail was actually sent by a person and not by a malicious
actor who potentially compromised the sender's infrastructure. Whatever dimwit
thought this was a good idea: You don't do that with S/MIME, you use
[DKIM][dkim], you absolute imbecile!

That there are better ways of doing it, can be seen in

## The ugly

And now for the part that's the darkest. Not just in mood, but also in what
insight this allows into the decision process higher up where the expertise is
either not heard or potentially worse: not even provided.

### Modifying email bodies

Let's start off with the cardinal sin: touching the body of an email. The only
person doing that. Is. The. Sender. You don't manipulate a mail's content, as
you never know what this might lead to. It may be a slight inconvenience, or it
could be something significantly undermining your companies' security.

To help laymen understand email-related issues, I like to draw parallels to the
good old postal service: As the postal service you don't touch the content of a
letter. You may scan it to make sure nobody's sending anthrax, but the only
person writing the content is the sender. And just how the postal service
prints routing codes and invalidates stamps on the envelope, it is of utmost
importance that this modification is limited to the envelope. They don't add a
"Sent and delivered with Deutsche Post" at the bottom, and if they did, all
hell would break loose. As it should be.

However, with emails, we just accept this practice. I understand that there are
things like address and registration information that has to legally be present
in a mail, but then you instruct your employees to follow these rules. Maybe
preconfigure the mail client with a proper signature and update it when the
employee's details change. All is happy in our little world. What you don't do
is adding that stuff to the body. If you are that concerned with compliance,
add it as an attachment. That's not great either, but still better than taking
out the wax crayon and dragging it around the bottom of the mail.

And what if the manager is absolutely certain that you have to edit the body of
a mail? Then you get the:

### Russian nesting mail

> This email contains a secure message that can be read by opening the
> attachment.

Yeah, sure. To verify your identity, please reply to this mail with your credit
card details. Is there a way to make it look less like a low-budget scam? Yes!
Just. Show. The. Original. Email.

![a mail showing a single "safe" attachment and a text instructing the reader
to open said attachment](/images/blog/illustrations/not-a-scam-1.png)

Yes, this looks legit. But let's open the attachment:

![a mail reading "additionally the situation around forwarded mail, could be
described as amusing if you're

Oh, there's another attachment. I wonder what that contains! It has no ribbon
though, so it's probably not safe, right?

![a mail looking identical to the

Wait, is it groundhog day? Again? Nope. The forwarded message is just attached
as an attachment, so it looks the same.

![the actual forwarded mail](/images/blog/illustrations/not-a-scam-4.png)

Could it be? The message that was actually forwarded? Awesome! Now I can read
it and reply to it, which with Outlook… oh… usually attaches all previous
attachments. And thus the cycle continues.

Do I fear any legal threats for sharing this "proprietary information"? No. As the disclaimer clearly states:

> E-Mails sent over the internet may have been written under a wrong name or
> been manipulated

So I can't even be sure that the sender actually wrote this. Maybe this was
just a glitch in the ticketing system I was writing with.

#### Quick shoutout

I just want to take a second to praise the woman from HR that made me aware of
that issue. She found this suspicious (as it is), and asked whether this mail
was trustworthy or not. Excellent! Though there are some deductions for asking
by replying to the suspicious mail. If I was an evil hacker, I would probably
have replied the same :D

## Where to go from here

Sure, I could go full-on Don Quijote and fight the windmills that is the
corporate IT landscape, but how willing they are to budge when a "lowly
employee" comes along is probably best illustrated by the last security audit
which mentioned (as I did hours after starting my job) that the current
password expiration policy of 90 days is – at best – security theatre, but more
realistically, actually leads to worse passwords to begin with. To this day,
the password policy has not been changed and passwords of users are weak,
posted to the frame of the screen, or sent via email. Sometimes multiple of
these at once.

If you need a carreer path for high pay with a low skill level, consider making
decisions in corporate IT. Apparently the requirements on professional
knowledge are not too high.

[davmail]: https://davmail.sourceforge.net/
[aerc]: https://aerc-mail.org
[capitalisation-problem]: https://lists.sr.ht/~rjarry/aerc-discuss/%3C52f6f2b3-00e6-410d-9eab-71505cd5e160%40app.fastmail.com%3E
[no-managers]: https://moritz.sh/blog/no-managers/
[list-etiquette]: https://man.sr.ht/lists.sr.ht/etiquette.md
[wikipedia-interleaved-posting]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
[tk-expert]: https://tarnkappe.info/tutorials/e-mail-tipps-vom-profi-nimm-das-ieh-aus-der-mail-288736.html
[dkim]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys_Identified_Mail
[comcrypto]: https://www.comcrypto.de/mxg-mail-gateway.html
[^1]: Obligatory plug for [aerc][aerc]
[^2]: https://www.wbs.legal/it-und-internet-recht/pflichtangaben-und-disclaimer-in-e-mails-ra-christian-solmecke-erklaert-welche-fehler-abgemahnt-werden-15697/
[^3]: https://www.lawblog.de/archives/2008/08/04/e-mail-disclaimer-sorgt-fur-niederlage-vor-gericht/
[^4]: \*cough\* \*cough\* Encrypt your confidential mails, you asshats.
[^5]: Don't you dare send an email to this address!
[^6]: Not saying they would.
[^7]: I am not sponsored or in any kind affiliated with them. I had an
      interaction over phone with them though, and came to the conclusion that
      they are at least interested in providing a product that improves their
      customers' experience. Are they perfect? No! But at least they educate
      their customers on what to expect. (They still modify the mail body, so
      bad company!)

M generated/cv/cv.tex => generated/cv/cv.tex +1 -1
@@ 70,7 70,7 @@
		\begin{SectionTable}{\Huge Moritz Poldrack} &
			moritz@poldrack.dev   $\;\boldsymbol{\cdot}\;$
			moritz.sh $\;\boldsymbol{\cdot}\;$
			+49 172 88 36 298
			+49 3522 30 82 045

		% --- Section: Research interests ---

M generated/cv/cv_de.tex => generated/cv/cv_de.tex +1 -1
@@ 70,7 70,7 @@
		\begin{SectionTable}{\Huge Moritz Poldrack} &
			moritz@poldrack.dev   $\;\boldsymbol{\cdot}\;$
			moritz.sh $\;\boldsymbol{\cdot}\;$
			+49 172 88 36 298
			+49 3522 30 82 045

		% --- Section: Research interests ---

A static/images/blog/illustrations/not-a-scam-1.png => static/images/blog/illustrations/not-a-scam-1.png +0 -0
A static/images/blog/illustrations/not-a-scam-2.png => static/images/blog/illustrations/not-a-scam-2.png +0 -0
A static/images/blog/illustrations/not-a-scam-3.png => static/images/blog/illustrations/not-a-scam-3.png +0 -0
A static/images/blog/illustrations/not-a-scam-4.png => static/images/blog/illustrations/not-a-scam-4.png +0 -0