Page 1 of 1

Don't strip the display name in reply address masking

PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:29 am
by lwc
Please merge this thread inside here (as it contained no actual subject and went in the wrong forum).

Also, why isn't this mentioned in FAQ? I actually didn't realize the stripping part until now...this concerns both the From and To.

Do you realize this means your recipients get unnamed messages from themselves...@spamgourmet.com...?

All I ask from you at this point is at least don't strip the display names mentioned in reply address masking in e-mail clients.

Re: Don't strip the display name in reply address masking

PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:25 pm
by gourmet
My point of view.

I like that reply masking removes name info. Email address is perfectly enough. If I want to use my real name and email address, then I do. If I choose to use spamgourmet reply masking, then I use it. And then it's better that my realname is also stripped away.

So please let me know if and when this is going to be changed.

Of course it's possible to set email name in email program to something funny. But that's not funny for other contacts.

Or user can setup multiple profiles in email program. Other with directy reply-to addresses to SG and some other name etc.

At least stripping should be optional. And I would prefer to use it.

Re: Don't strip the display name in reply address masking

PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:31 pm
by nick4mony
I think we need to distinquish two use-cases
    When you receive an email from Ty Coon
    When you send an email to Ty Coon.

Since this thread is concerned with outgoing messages (you -> Ty Coon), here's a suggestion:

If you want to use your real name and real email address, you simply skip Spamgourmet altogether.

But if you want to use your real name and a Spamgourmet reply address, here's my technical suggestion (for development). In the first few lines of the message, allow the user to put several header fields:
Code: Select all
X-FTfromName: Barack Obama
X-FTtoName: Ty Coon
Hello Ty Coon, your time is up (rest of message).

Of course, users with the technical capability to add custom headers (as real headers) should do so, but places like Yahoo cannot do that.

The advantage is that no extra database fields are required - the system gets a message, parses it, and strips (or not) accordingly, with the default being for more privacy. After the message is processed, there's nothing to store.

Nick.

PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 3:34 am
by josh
good point nick4mony - we all are talking only about messages going *from* a spamgourmet user *to* somebody else, right?

(messages going the other way -- *from* somebody else *to* a spamgourmet user with reply address masking will sometimes have the display name preserved, but only if the display name + the new longer address are less than 80 characters (or some number - I can't remember what it is right now), I think - we had problems when we let the address field get longer than that)

Also, messages *from* a spamgourmet user *to* somebody else aren't altered unless you're sending to a redirection address -- another way to look at this is if you *don't* have reply address masking turned on, then there's no alteration.

so, to sum up the feature request, if I, the spamgourmet user, have reply address masking enabled and I send a message that way now, using, for example testaddress.josh@xoxy.net as the disposable address, it changes:

From: "Josh Hamilton" <joshrealaddress@example.com>

to

From: testaddress.josh@xoxy.net

(assuming my mail server uses the syntax on top - there are, unfortunately, different ways to do it, and so you can't count on consistency)

and what this feature would do is make it so that

From: "Josh Hamilton" <joshrealaddress@example.com>

would instead change to

From: "Josh Hamilton" <testaddress.josh@xoxy.net>


is this what we're all talking about?

Spamgourmet user sending to someone else

PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:15 pm
by nick4mony
josh wrote:good point nick4mony - we all are talking only about messages going *from* a spamgourmet user *to* somebody else, right?
...
so, to sum up the feature request, if I, the spamgourmet user, have reply address masking enabled and I send a message that way now, using, for example testaddress.josh@xoxy.net as the disposable address, it changes:

From: "Josh Hamilton" <joshrealaddress@example.com>

to

From: testaddress.josh@xoxy.net

(assuming my mail server uses the syntax on top - there are, unfortunately, different ways to do it, and so you can't count on consistency)

and what this feature would do is make it so that

From: "Josh Hamilton" <joshrealaddress@example.com>

would instead change to

From: "Josh Hamilton" <testaddress.josh@xoxy.net>


is this what we're all talking about?


Yes, that is correct - for those that have reply-address-masking turned on. And because different people have different preferences, one needs to be able to control it (with my suggestion being to leave the default behaviour as current, but control it with custom headers or header-like lines in your message).

Two points come to mind
  1. The reason I use FT rather than SG is if the user (or the spamgourmet software) muffs it up and the header lines don't get intercepted, the recipient will see them. Presumably most recipients won't associate the "FT" with Spamgourmet.
  2. The Spamgourmet software needs to be able to dig out those header-like lines from inside a HTML-coded message (Urrghh!).


Nick

PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 2:38 pm
by lwc
Yes, Josh, that's the request. All I want is the same thing as "messages going the other way". My point is asking why should there be any difference?

I'm sorry, but the natural way is to display your name. Spamgourmet is an "anti-spam tool", not a service to send anonymous messages and remove headers. Especially when your method is likely to cause blacklisting (officially or not) or suspicious treatment (of a nameless weird looking address). Keep in mind "no name" is a steady official factor in determining what's spam or not. Need I remind you 99.9% of the users never check their spam box? I challenge you to find the word "anonymizer" anywhere in the main page of FAQ. Besides, hiding one's name in one's mailer takes 2 clicks (or even 1 as some of smallest programs might let you change it right from the actual message), really unlike demanding of others to live their entire life using only special programs/services that add custom headers.

Don't believe me that Spamgourmet is - and even actively refuses to be an anonymizer and risk lawsuits? Which specifically means Spamgourmet officially refuses to modify/remove headers (which means the issue here is a glitch and not a feature)? Then click here to read it directly from Josh.

But why are we even arguing? Adding a choice of "strip display name" would solve that issue for those who want an auto anonymizer. Then you could update the FAQ and mention Spamgourmet can also be used as an anonymizer (Q: "Is it true Spamgourmet can also be an anonymizer?" A: "Yes, just enable strip display name, but be aware it is more likely to flag your messages - whether in the receiver's eyes or plain out technically - as spam. Also realize by doing so you may risk Spamgourmet itself legally.").

Re: Don't strip the display name in reply address masking

PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:10 pm
by lwc
josh (2013) wrote:this is pretty much working now, right? It's not an option, it's on all the time.

Believe me, even without it, sg is not an anonymizer.

I can't natively test it because you've already manually enabled it for me.
So I've created a new test user, and guess what - this "feature" is still off by default...

Worse still, my tests proved you've removed the display name for reply-masked addresses. That is, if I send to "Whatever" <...@ob.0sg.net> than the recipient sees it as simply "...@ob.0sg.net".
This may cause my outgoing messages to get flagged as spam.

Last but not least, please use "quotes" for display names ("Whatever" <...@ob.0sg.net> instead of Whatever <...@ob.0sg.net>) - this refers to users which you've fixed manually to have this "feature".

Re: Don't strip the display name in reply address masking

PostPosted: Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:21 pm
by josh
Yes, the feature is off by default, and it's only on for you and me, I think. I added quotes.

Re: Don't strip the display name in reply address masking

PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 6:39 am
by lwc
Thanks for the quick fix!

For the accounts that use it, can you also fix it to keep the To field's display name? "If I send to "Whatever" <...@ob.0sg.net> than it currently becomes simply "...@ob.0sg.net".

Re: Don't strip the display name in reply address masking

PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 11:13 pm
by K6PDG
When I send directly from my email account to my recipient, the From: looks like From: Personal Name <username@mousepotato.com>.
When I relay my email through SpamGourmet.com, both parts of the From: are replaced by the SpamGourmet full address, thus From: username@spamgourmet.com <username@spamgourmet.com>. Is there someplace I can specify my Personal Name to SpamGourmet so the result is From: Personal Name <username@spamgourmet.com> ?

I ask because it makes the archive of any mailing list I use display the obfuscated full address rather than my Personal Name. It looks like I don't know how to use my email user agent.