Project

General

Profile

Actions
Copy link

tickets #7902

closed

[admin] poor email address munging on lists.opensuse.org

Added by mrmazda almost 9 years ago. Updated almost 7 years ago.

Status:
Closed
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Category:
Email
Target version:
-
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Estimated time:

Description

Example display in content from a typical message:

From: Felix Miata <mrmazda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

...
Message-id: 5528514B.5050409@earthlink.net

Note the identical length 13 characters following "@" in each.

Here's one even worse:

From: Michael Andres <ma@xxxxxxx>

...
Message-id: 201410021438.58229.ma@suse.de

Here the matching length is 7 characters, but the message-id includes the
entirety of the sender Michael's actual email address.

What's the point of munging at all if the whole email address is apparent by
putting 1 and 1 together? Does the message-id even need to be displayed in

? Wny not simply sender and date?

"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/

Actions
Copy link
 #1

Updated by Anonymous over 8 years ago

  • Category set to Email
  • Assignee set to hennevogel
Actions
Copy link
 #2

Updated by tampakrap about 7 years ago

  • Assignee changed from hennevogel to pjessen
  • Private changed from Yes to No
Actions
Copy link
 #3

Updated by pjessen about 7 years ago

  • Due date set to 2017-05-02
  • Status changed from New to Feedback
  • Assignee changed from pjessen to mrmazda

Hi Felix

I guess you're talking about how archived emails are rendered on lists.o.o ? I see the issue in some cases, but messageids only occasionally contain the email address. It is up to the sending email agent or -server to add a unique messageid, but a message-id is simply something-left@something-right, there is no need to add any email address. I guess someone could modify the archiving software, but is it really necessary?

Actions
Copy link
 #4

Updated by mrmazda about 7 years ago

What's the point of doing any archived list mail munging if both pieces of every email address are right there in plain sight? Might as well leave every one complete so that subscribers who want to reply to an unsaved email have a simpler copy & paste job to do.

Actions
Copy link
 #5

Updated by pjessen almost 7 years ago

  • Due date deleted (2017-05-02)
  • Status changed from Feedback to Closed
  • Assignee deleted (mrmazda)
  • % Done changed from 0 to 100

mrmazda wrote:

What's the point of doing any archived list mail munging if both pieces of every email address are right there in plain sight?

The current display of the message-id does not make address harvesting any easier (or more likely).
It's much easier to grab an mbox archive directly and fish out the complete email addresses. A simple one line script will produce a list of all senders.
Omitting the mbox archive would probably be a good idea, but I don't know how much it is used.

Actions
Copy link

Also available in: Atom PDF