An addition i'd love to see for Reply Address Masking

General discussion re sg.

An addition i'd love to see for Reply Address Masking

Postby Guest » Sat Nov 13, 2004 12:57 am

An addition i'd love to see for Reply Address Masking is the ability to include the full name portion of the From: and Reply-To: headers i.e.:



I want to use SG to correspond safely with friends that i know have unsafe emailing habits (non-BCC emailing to large groups, forwarding chain letters, etc) that will get my real email address on spamlists. SG disposable email addresses are fine for impersonal corporations' email bots and web forms, but are kind of jarring in my friends' inbox lists, where they would normally be replaced by a full name if it was provided.

I don't know anything about how it would be implemented on the back end, but the 'send a message from one of your disposable addresses' page would require only one more text field.

This idea has similar goals to what xdcdx was requesting in this post but from another angle.

what do you think?
Guest
 

Postby SysKoll » Sat Nov 13, 2004 5:41 pm

Josh,

That sounds like a good idea. Of course, this is one more field in the database.
-- SysKoll
SysKoll
 
Posts: 884
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 9:24 pm

Could it be a registration fld to select

Postby wshealy » Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:11 am

Maybe if when the disposable address is create on the send page if you selected the option it could use the name as stored in our registration at SG or entered. This would at least limit having to store stuff. Once the address is formatted once if it is like my outlook the actual description is a part of the email address Joe Smith <xxx.t.jsmith@SG.com> if I remember correctly
wshealy
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 5:28 am

Postby josh » Tue Nov 30, 2004 9:57 pm

what if it used the display name (if there was one) from the message as it received it? E.g, I want to send a message through sg -- from my email client, I send a message that's from

Joe Blo <joeblo@example.com>

to the redirecting address, then sg replaces it with:

Joe Blo <someword.joeb@s g .com>

-- it would still need to be an optional feature -- if it's an account-wide option, we wouldn't have to make any database changes to do it.
josh
 
Posts: 1371
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 2:28 pm

Postby SysKoll » Wed Dec 01, 2004 12:59 am

That's a very good idea!
-- SysKoll
SysKoll
 
Posts: 884
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 9:24 pm

Important feature

Postby headerman » Sat May 07, 2005 3:47 am

Yeah, what they said.

I came to the forum today to request this feature (a way to send messages with a human name in addition to an email address), and I see it's already been suggested (a few places).
headerman
 

Postby crazycomputers » Sat May 07, 2005 10:45 am

I have suggested this and several similar ideas here. To sum up the differences:

The one thing I suggested that I don't see here is that it would be nice if the "from" field on messages sent to a disposable were not modified at all, but a "reply-to" field was added specifying the sg passthru address -- or, if a "reply-to" field exists already, simply replace it with an sg passthru address going there. This should be an easy patch.
Real programmers don't comment their code. It was hard to write; it should be hard to understand.
crazycomputers
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 7:53 pm

Postby ttancredi » Sat May 10, 2008 4:52 am

3 years ago, there seemed to be some enthusiasm for Display Name retention. Has anything happened with it since?


> it would be nice if the "from" field on messages sent to a
> disposable were not modified at all

If "no modification" is merely one selectable variation of From field treatment, then I do not care if "no modification" is selectable. I just will not select the "no modification" variation.

The From field treatment I want is the treatment Josh suggested

what if it used the display name (if there was one) from the
message as it received it?
Tank
ttancredi
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 10:41 am

Postby Paranoid2000 » Thu May 22, 2008 1:48 am

I'd like to see this feature added too - it would be most useful when emailing "non-technical users" (who are the least reliable in keeping addresses private) who otherwise might mistake emails from xyz.20.abc@spamgourmet.com as junk.
Paranoid2000
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:48 am

Postby nick4mony » Tue May 27, 2008 1:18 pm

crazycomputers wrote:it would be nice if the "from" field on messages sent to a disposable were not modified at all, but a "reply-to" field was added specifying the sg passthru address


My suggestion would be to move the original From and Reply-To fields into custom headers (like X-sg-orig-reply-to and X-sg-orig-from). You'd have to View Full Headers on the message to see these headers, but you'd only need to do that if you needed to relay the email address to someone else.

Leaving the original address in the From: field is a bit dangerous - you never know some email software might actually send it there direct!!
nick4mony
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:13 pm

Postby miniscus » Tue May 27, 2008 10:52 pm

My strong consent to Josh's great idea.

I cannot remember a single mail in which I would have preferred to not have this happen.

I may have misunderstood other options mentioned here, but I would strongy regret if my protected address would show up anywhere in a message, of course including the header.
Arick
miniscus
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 10:05 pm
Location: Wiesbaden, Germany

Postby nick4mony » Wed May 28, 2008 6:20 am

Josh's suggestion applies to messages that you send out "from one of your disposables" to a Ty Coon.

I fully support Josh's idea (hopefully there's no-one here that also wants to hide their identity).

My suggestion applies to messages that Ty Coon sends to one of your disposable addresses. Usually the system makes it obvious what their address is, but not always. That's why I would like those extra headers.

Nick.
nick4mony
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:13 pm

Postby miniscus » Wed May 28, 2008 12:09 pm

Thanks nick4mony, I understand now (bejond Josh's idea).

And yes, since 2003 I also have had a few rare cases where I needed the sender's (Ty Coon's) clear address. To relay it, or to start communicating with a different "from" of mine, like in some cases my protected address. This seemed a bit risky to do, as my head is dominated by work, beauty and speed rather than with what sg actually does within return address masking.

Recently I happened to get two identical newsletters from one Ty Coon. One to an sg address, one to my protected (forgot I had registered in pre-sg days). This case showed me, that sg does reliably deliver the clear text sender address:
Original FROM = "name" <address>
Masked FROM = "name - address" <masked address>

But the original REPLY TO is found masked only in the header. It may really be a good idea to add X-SG-FROM and X-SG-REPLY TO fields. If just for consistency...

I also found a masked RETURN PATH field, but dunno if it is ever needed.
Arick

(I'd like to again expess my support toward Guest's initial idea and Josh's solution for a full name portion of our FROM)
miniscus
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 10:05 pm
Location: Wiesbaden, Germany

Postby miniscus » Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 pm

WOW! is this an old thread!
josh wrote:-- it would still need to be an optional feature --
FWIW:
It being an option is inherent. Adding a display name could turn it on, omitting it cannot. ;-)
Arick
miniscus
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 10:05 pm
Location: Wiesbaden, Germany

Postby nick4mony » Thu May 29, 2008 2:00 am

miniscus wrote:This case showed me, that sg does reliably deliver the clear text sender address:
Original FROM = "name" <address>
Masked FROM = "name - address" <masked address>


It doesn't always do that. A few times, I've got a FROM line like this:
Code: Select all
From: +MYWORD+MYSGUSERNAME+25112eebc7.CCCustomerAdvocacy#virginCOMPANY.COM@spamgourmet.com


No sign of the clear-text address. Bits in capitals have been replaced (including the tld of the company's domain name). It's one of many Virgin companies.

Nick.
miniscus wrote:my head is dominated by work, beauty and speed

<SIGH>Fast women and slow horses, huh?</SIGH>
nick4mony
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:13 pm

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron