Skip to main content

GMail does not understand dots...

I recently discovered some little-known ways to use a GMail address that can give you greater control over your inbox and save you some time. Actually, when you choose a Gmail address, you actually get more than just "yourusername@gmail.com"; here are two different ways you can modify your Gmail address and still continue getting your mails:
  • Append a plus ("+") sign and any combination of words or numbers after your email address. For example, if your name was yourusername@gmail.com, you could send mail to yourusername+friends@gmail.com or yourusername+mailinglists@gmail.com.
  • Insert one or several dots (".") anywhere in your email address. Gmail doesn't recognize periods as characters in addresses -- Google mail just ignores them. For example, you could tell people your address was hikingfan@gmail.com, hiking.fan@gmail.com or hi.kin.g.fan@gmail.com.
For me, the real value in being able to manipulate your email address is that it makes it really easy to filter on those variants. For example you could use yourusername+bank@gmail.com when you sign up for online banking and then set up a filter to automatically star, archive or label emails addressed to yourusername+bank. You can also use this when you register for a service and think they might share your information. For example, I added "+yahoogrp" when I subscribed to some yahoo groups once, and now when I see emails from other groups to that address, I know how they got it and can apply a filter to auto-delete the mails.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Shard – A Database Design

Scaling Database is one of the most common and important issue that every business confronts in order to accommodate the growing business and thus caused exponential data storage and availability demand. There two principle approaches to accomplish database scaling; v.i.z. vertical and horizontal. Regardless of which ever scaling strategy one decides to follow, we usual land-up buying ever bigger, faster, and more expensive machines; to either move the database on them for vertical scale-up or cluster them together to scale horizontally. While this arrangement is great if one has ample financial support, it doesn't work so well for the bank accounts of some of our heroic system builders who need to scale well past what they can afford. In this write-up, I intend to explain a revolutionary and fairly new database architecture; termed as Sharding, that some websites like Friendster and Flickr have been using since quite sometime now. The concept defines an affordable approach t...
8 comments
Read more

FAINT - Search for faces

Lately, I've been playing around a bit with facial pattern recognition algorithms and their open source implementations. I came across many reference implementation but a very few were implemented in Java, and the Eigenfaces algorithm by far happens to be the best amongst them all. During my research around the said topic i happened to stumble-upon an implementation called FAINT (The Face Annotation Interface - http://faint.sourceforge.net). Faint by far the best facial pattern recognition API and as you must have already guessed, it implements the Eigenfaces algorithm. Now enough of theory talks, how about implementing an example with faint...? Here is one for all you face-recognition enthusiasts. The following example simply searches for faces in a given photograph and thumbnails them. Now, I know thats not face recognition; but be a little creative here. Once you have the facial thumbnails extracted, its never a big deal to look further in the Faint API and find methods which ca...
27 comments
Read more

Schematron - validating web-forms and java objects

Whilst developing web applications, more than often we are confronted with the need to validate user inputs. On the client-side (browsers) we generally do that with scripting languages; and for those users who have perhaps deliberately disabled their browser script support; we perform the same set validation on the server side, and this time we write some lines-of-code to extract the user input from the HTTP request and validate the same. Well, although ironic; yet it seems to be a de-facto that - we have to specify the validation rules separately on the client and server side, for eventually validating something that is semantically same. A technical analysis into the core reason reveals that – although the semantics of the herein discussed "thing" (i.e. the user input) are the same, yet the representations of the semantic on the client and server side are different; which enforces us to implement the extraction and validation logic differently. So going by that theory - if ...
6 comments
Read more