Masking discrepancy #bug


Duane
 

I'm not sure if it's always been this way, but I just noticed it.  On some messages, when a group has selected to Mask Email Addresses, they're not being masked to members (nor to non-members).  From what little digging I've done, it appears that it's only messages that were imported from Yahoo and is in the reply, usually hidden, but easily seen.  The lines in question have the format


----- Original Message -----
From: <user @ domain.tld> (without the spaces)

or

--- On Tue, 6/28/11, username <user @ domain.tld> wrote: (again, without spaces)

It may seem nit-picky to some, but one group I was on at YG had private archives and when it was moved here the owner decided to leave them public, so addresses (and other 'private' information) are being exposed unnecessarily.  I haven't been able to convince him that he should honor the implied contract with members on the YG, so any help is better than what we've got.

Thanks,
Duane


 

This exact thing is also happening currently in replies, sometimes but not always, in the similar "On ... wrote" line:

>>> On date, time "John Doe" <user @ domain.tld> wrote:   (also without the spaces, I'll email a GMF example privately)

It happens on replied messages using email, not on new emails.  In testing, two identical-body+no-quoted-text reply emails, one done as "new" reply (does not have In-Reply-To), the other a regular clicked-reply email, they will mask differently.  (I'll email the testing topic I used privately)

Also related to this, we're not masking the GIO-rewritten/munged addresses either in that "On ... wrote" line (or anywhere it seems if a reply), for example

>>> On date, time "John Doe" <user = domain.tld @ groups.io> wrote:     (also without the spaces)

Even if it's the munged address, still it's pretty-much exposed.

Duane suggested it may depend on the way the email client formats that line in the reply message, and it seems so, at least partially.  In the above case, Thunderbird seems to handle it OK as it will exclude the <email address> bit from the "On ... wrote" line if it thinks the email address is "invalid" but Gmail includes it regardless.  On the other hand, Tbird replies don't seem to get masked on both the regular or munged address, but the same-text reply from gmail will mask the regular but not the munged address, again examples are in the testing thread which I'll email privately.

Cheers,
Christos


Duane
 

On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 01:12 PM, Christos Psarras wrote:
In the above case, Thunderbird seems to handle it OK as it will exclude the <email address> bit from the "On ... wrote" line if it thinks the email address is "invalid" but Gmail includes it regardless.  On the other hand, Tbird replies don't seem to get masked on both the regular or munged address
Another data point:  I've been able to clarify, thanks to a member that 'creates' this problem, that another client is Forte Agent.

Duane


 

Hi,

This should be fixed now.

Thanks,
Mark


Duane
 

On Wed, Jun 8, 2022 at 12:14 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
This should be fixed now.
The 'legitimate' email addresses all seem to be masked as they should, but the munged addresses are still visible.  That's likely to be a bit more work. ;>)

Duane