Redacted On A Feedback Loop


This post is a little more of a rant than I usually make, but I think its warranted. If you don’t know what a feedback loop is, read here.

I’m not sure who thinks its a good idea to replace all instances of an email addresses in a feedback loop with [redacted], but it is of no help to anyone. An argument can be made for protecting the identity of the recipient, but that argument holds little weight because there is little the sender can do about it.

If a sender needs to go through the authorization process of a larger recipient domain (like AOL, Yahoo!, or Excite for example) where their IP reputation is checked and their history is checked, etc. then why should there still be restrictions placed on the information going between the two domains (you as the sender and them as the recipient domains). I am aware that the draft specification allow the operating domain for the feedback loop to keep the identity private of the user clicking the “Report SPAM” button, but that forces the sending domains to use tactics to circumvent this to keep their reputation up.

Therefore I believe that if a sending company has verified their feedback loop address, they should be able to see which recipient reported their email as “Junk”. Get rid of the redacted and leave the email address intact.

One Response to “Redacted On A Feedback Loop”

  1. […] View original post here: Redacted On A Feedback Loop […]

Leave a Reply