Masking seems to be incompatible with exclusive senders...

[thormj]

I started using the reply address masking, but it seems to be killing my exclusive senders...

I've setup restraunt.com as an exclusive sender for an email address, and the resulting message says 3 of 10 [in addition to blowing outlook's "safe-sender" rules].

Could you make a radiobutton so that the original From can go through properly, and the mangled version be set into the Reply-To field?

[Paranoid2000]

Limiting the masked address to the Reply-To field only would rather undermine the point of address masking (to stop the recipient from identifying your real email address).

Masking and exclusive senders should work perfectly well together (the "x of y" suffix in the email header is normal but can be disabled). Might the problem be with your Outlook setup?

[thormj]

In opposite order...

Masking and exclusive senders should work perfectly well together (the "x of y" suffix in the email header is normal but can be disabled). Might the problem be with your Outlook setup?

I have a restruant.xxx@sgdomain.xyz address with restraunt.com setup as an exclusive sender. Normally messages from restraunt.com come in, and the subject line reads [whatever] - Exclusive sender, but when the masking is turned on, it becomes [whatever] (restraunt: message 3 of 10), so I think the masking is getting applied before the "counting/bucketting" stage and effectively is turning off the exclusive sender (in this case, I have the exclusive sender set to someemail@restraunt.xyz). [changed just in case there's a Stan Omeemail working there].

Limiting the masked address to the Reply-To field only would rather undermine the point of address masking (to stop the recipient from identifying your real email address).

I'm not sure I follow -- I only have a limited understanding of MUAs & MTA's work, but I have a friendslink email list (Mailman), and messages come in with this in the header:

Code: Select all

Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:57:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: original_sender@original.domain.xyz
To: friendslink@mailmandomain.xyz
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: [Friendslink] I just saw it on CNN.com: Settlement results in free credit monitoring service
X-BeenThere: friendslink@mailmandomain.xyz
Reply-To: friendslink@mailmandomain.xyz
Sender: friendslink-bounces@mailmandomain.xyz
Errors-To: friendslink-bounces@mailmandomain.xyz
Return-Path: friendslink-bounces@mailmandomain.xyz

In Outlook, this shows up in the short list as from orignal_sender@original.domain.xyz, and when the message is opened, it shows up as from friendslink-bounces@mailmandomain.xyz on behalf of original_sender@original.domain.xyz

When I reply, it goes to friendslink@mailmandomain.xyz by default (of course I can change that while composing the message, but I usually don't).

It seems to me that nothing would change on the outgoing end of spamgourmet; the only thing that would change would be leaving the original sender in the From: header, and putting the munged address in the Reply To: header if masking is turned on, and the message is being sent to restraunt.xxx@sgdomain.xyz.

Of course on the outgoing message, I want the From: header to be restraunt.xxxx@sgdomain.xyz with no traces of my protected address in the message.

[SysKoll]

the only thing that would change would be leaving the original sender in the From: header,

The problem here is that people using masking preceisly do NOT want their original sender in the From header.

[thormj]

I can handle that, but I am curious why (the only leaking that I saw was if the receiver said "reply to all" -- then the reply would be sent to both spamgourmet [good] and the original sender [bad])...

If masking is enabled, it looks like the mask is applied before the decrement --- so the Exclusive sender doesn't work if it is set to a particular email address (instead of a domain) if Masking is turned on.

[Paranoid2000]

I can handle that, but I am curious why

Because some users prefer having SG aliases used exclusively, even by friends and relatives (it makes switching ISP, which often necessitates a change of email address, a lot easier since you only need adjust your SG settings to the new email). It also protects you in cases where a correspondent copies an email you sent to a hostile party (e.g. a spam complaint you made to an ISP being forwarded to the spammer themselves).

...the Exclusive sender doesn't work if it is set to a particular email address (instead of a domain) if Masking is turned on.

The Exclusive sender definitely works in conjunction with Masking (and appends "exclusive sender" to the email title) - I use it extensively myself. However with Masking enabled, the people you correspond with will receive a different reply-to address and that may be the reason for your results. Try re-applying the exclusive address with Masking on using a test alias.

[thormj]

I can handle that, but I am curious why

Because some users prefer having SG aliases used exclusively, even by friends and relatives (it makes switching ISP, which often necessitates a change of email address, a lot easier since you only need adjust your SG settings to the new email). It also protects you in cases where a correspondent copies an email you sent to a hostile party (e.g. a spam complaint you made to an ISP being forwarded to the spammer themselves).

That's a lot of what I use my spamgourmet account for. I'm tired of changing email addresses whenever I change jobs (so I have one of "misc I want to read at the end of the day", and one that delivers to my home address).

I'm a little confused as to why maintaining the original From hurts anything:

Code: Select all

Step 1: They send you a message (it goes to spamgourmet):
     From: Friendly@foo.example.nyc
       To: you@sgdomain.nyc

SG rewrites and forwards you the message (goes to you):
     From: Friendly@foo.example.nyc
 Reply-To: Friendly-xxsda89auth@sgdomain.nyc
       To: you@hiddendomain.nyc

You Reply to the message (goes back to spamgourmet):
     From: you@hiddendomain.nyc
       To: Friendly-xxsda89auth@sgdomain.nyc

SG rewrites and passes the message on to them (as it currently does -- back to them):
     From: you@sgdomain.nyc
       To: Friendly@foo.example.nyc

If the Friendly starts passing information around, all he has ever seen is the you@sgdomain.nyc address... which, if reported to spamgourmet as a spammer would probably annoy spamgourmet.


Your hidden address is not exposed (unless your mail client doesn't honor the reply-to header) to anyone besides spamgourmet. If your email client doesn't honor the reply-to header or you accidentally hit Reply-All, you could leak your hidden address, so I think it should probably be an option (Mask hidden address using From, or Mask hidden address using Reply-To).

But in the meantime, all of your rules set up to process mail will work without changes, even if the rule had a complete email address instead of just a domain (eg, From sales@HarborFreight, put into Shopping, always download images from dailywtf emails).

Right now, the original sender is masked (err... you can't see who is sending you the email), and you can't even put a rewriter in front of it to open it up, so I had to change my rules to apply to the entire domain instead of just an email address at a domain.

...the Exclusive sender doesn't work if it is set to a particular email address (instead of a domain) if Masking is turned on.

The Exclusive sender definitely works in conjunction with Masking (and appends "exclusive sender" to the email title) - I use it extensively myself. However with Masking enabled, the people you correspond with will receive a different reply-to address and that may be the reason for your results. Try re-applying the exclusive address with Masking on using a test alias.

I must have gotten something confused somewhere. I just tried it, and it did work the way you said, so I'm thinking about turning it on again....

[Paranoid2000]

I'm a little confused as to why maintaining the original From hurts anything:

Because the From entry will be displayed by most email clients and included in address books. With masking enabled, only your IP address and mail server can be found (in the email headers).

Aside from that, good to hear that things seem to be working and thanks for the update.