On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 21:07 -0400, Dave (FitEyes) wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Lindsay Haisley <fmouse-mailman@fmp.com> wrote: On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 20:42 -0400, Dave (FitEyes) wrote: > It now seems pretty clear that we can use these reports in the way > Lindsay and others have proposed.
Well if this is so, are they still redacting the VERP recipient addresses?Yes.
Reading in <http://postmaster.aol.com/Postmaster.FeedbackLoop.php+> it seems that "[AOL suggests] using opaque identifiers for the email recipient or a custom remove link in the body of the email to help you identify the original recipient of the message."
I would assume that an AES-encrypted email address in Resent-Message-ID or in the VERP address, or even a hashed recipient address in a custom header such as X-Subdata, all of which have been discussed here, would meet the criterion of being an "opaque identifier". Does this sound logical?
Of these, an encrypted or hashed recip address in the VERP envelope header seems the most logical, since it seems that we don't have to go "stealth" with this one. Any chance of requesting this in Mailman 3?
Looking at a recent Email Feedback Report it looks as if the list name is also pretty well redacted, except in the message footer, the format of which is up to individual list administrators, so maybe the list name or address should be included in this or another encrypted header as well.
-- Lindsay Haisley | "The voice of dissent was arrested before FMP Computer Services | the president cleared his throat to 512-259-1190 | speak of freedom" http://www.fmp.com | | -- Chris Chandler