Now I'm curious: what was in the watermark that would trigger Outlook? (I'm having some fun speculating. My guess right now is a ye olde "bu¥ vi@gr@ ch33p!!!!" spam trigger.)
replyNo, it was a bit more subtle than that but I'm definitely not going to post the secret sauce in an open forum. The trick is to trigger the filters in a way that they'll block the mail completely, not just spam trap it.
replyAren’t you running a high risk of your own email or other cloud accounts getting flagged doing this? What if your email provider (‘s AI agent) had permanently banned your account?
replyi think the point is that you're not sending these docs over email, and they never actually trigger the filter they might trigger. if you're emailing docs containing the "don't email me" trap often enough that you get your account flagged, you've got bigger problems.
replyJoining in on the speculation game: the EICAR string maybe?
replyOh I didn't know about this thing, thanks for the discovery.
replyAmusingly Nathan For You did this in a humourous way back in 2014 (S02E06 - "Party Planner").
replyremember about aria-hidden or equivalent, otherwise you are making the text visible to screen reader users.
replyI have read many snide comments and personal ID numbers that way, mostly in public and public-ish documents.
Oh, that's funny. I don't mind people with screen readers reading it. The Venn diagram with 'people with screen readers' on one side and 'people that are about to break an embargo' must be an interesting subset.
replyAI often goes the screen reader route though..
replyProbably getting larger and larger with all the agentic workflows popping up as of late.
replyWhat's the benefit? It appears that the outlook rejection was unintended. So against llm processing?
replyThe embargo was enforced. This slightly mitigates scenarios where someone accidentally sends a document via email while it is under embargo.
reply