The problem is with AOL's new policy for their feedback loop program that took effect September 1st. For the last several years of the program, if someone reported an email as SPAM, AOL sent a copy of that email, complete with headers, with the AOL member's address that reported the email as SPAM.
Now, they redact that email address. They redact the username. They redact anything they think could be the username. (Including mailing list headers like Mailman - with full VERP.) This makes it more difficult to remove people who decided they no longer wanted to receive the email and were too lazy to unsubscribe. Many other ISP's offer similar services, (Microsoft/Hotmail/MSN, Comcast, Excite, Road Runner, etc.) but they include the full headers unredacted, just as AOL did for years. The feedback loop is a requirement of being whitelisted with AOL - so it is a necessary and valuable tool - at least it was. Now to use it one must search exim_mainlog for the id of the email that was sent to the AOL member. Being able to obfuscate, or easily encrypt on send and decrypt on receive would save a great deal of time. It also makes staying whitelisted easier, and my servers staying whitelisted is very important to me. ----- Original Message ----- From: W B Hacker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: exim users <[email protected]> Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 09:24:49 +0800 Subject: Re: [exim] Looking to Create and Addtional Header Record to Solve AOL Redaction Problems > Lloyd Tennison wrote: > > Based on To: . Because of AOL redacting email addresses from SPAM reports, > > I thought that if a new Envelope-to: (different name) was added, and the > > user name was split into pieces and then added some weird characters in the > > middle, AOL (and others) would not be able to redact. (From an earlier > > thread, Envelope-To would probably not work.) > > > > Example: > > > > Call the new header X-Ref > > > > X-Ref: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > X-Ref: [email protected] > > > > This would then work for both mailing lists and individual messages. Any > > thoughts on this? Other options also solicited. > > > > ?? > > Not exactly sure what 'problem' this is intended to resolve. > > Or why it is seen to be necessary. Or assumed to 'work'. > > Background? Environment? Goals? > > > Bill > > > -- > ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users > ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ > ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/ > -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
