Is masking meant to work in To: only?

[zooloo]

Huh, do I miss something or does masking not work in the Cc field? I've just read a random mailer daemon feedback, and was rather surprised to discover an "sg coded" address as Cc destination in the cited original message header.
Apparently, it hadn't been masked but could pass through sg unchanged?


Cheers,

zooloo

[josh]

the unmasking only happens on the recipient address -- does that help? I'm not sure I understand the issue

[zooloo]

Yes, that anwers my question. It seems to be not a particular problem of the "Cc" field but generally of sending an email via sg to more than one address. Every recipient will see every other recipient's address as sg forwarder rather than as plain, unmasked address.

Together with the fact that currently, sg forwarders apparently process all incoming mails regardless of the sender being the corresponding sg account or not, this can cause quite some confusion, when a recipient replies with some of the forwarders (i. e. the not unmasked addresses) included in "To", "Cc" or "Bcc".

Is there a reason to not unmask just all sg coded addresses in the header?

(see also http://www.spamgourmet.com/bbs/viewtopi ... =3325#3325)


zooloo