SysKoll wrote:How did you test this? The masking works for me.
Here is what I did:
*I have enabled the "Reply Address Masking" and sent a message from a email address A to my spamgourmet account forwarding to address B.
*I received the email on mailbox B and replied.
*The reply was received on A and I checked the content: it didn't show any trace of forwarding address B.
.
Let's say I sent a test email from B to example.20.example@spamgourmet.com which sends it to A .
Which address are you supposed to reply to? Are you supposed to reply to the address in the "To" field or the "From" field?
SysKoll wrote:Let's say I sent a test email from B to example.20.example@spamgourmet.com which sends it to A .
Which address are you supposed to reply to? Are you supposed to reply to the address in the "To" field or the "From" field?
If your "example" SG account has address masking enabled, it will mask your account.
In your scenario, correspondant B sends an email to your SG account which forwards it to your forwarding address A. At this stage, examine the email received on A. Its "From" field contains something like "+word+username+code.addressofB@spamgourmet.com". If you reply, the reply goes back to that SG address (+word+ etc.). SG sees in this address all the info it needs to forward the reply back to B. B should have your example.20.example@spamgourmet.com SG address in the "from" field.
josh wrote:If you have reply address masking enabled, the whole process should be transparent to you. You reply to the from or the reply to address -- whichever you'd normally reply to.
What won't happen: If your real address appears in any non-standard headers (other than the ones mentioned above) or in the Subject or body of the message, it will remain in place. We do have a remedy for this on the to-do list. Also, the system will not remove the headers in the message that indicate your IP address and the the mail server that you used to send the message initially. Removing these wouldn't do much to improve spam protection, and could actually be construed as unlawful, given the language of some recent spam related bills and laws (definitely not contrary to the spirit of the legislation, but perhaps to the letter). From our perspective, it's also absolutely necessary for abuse prevention -- a subject that consumes 80% of our discussions in the developer forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 123 guests