3 ms·
The 'right to track' here is because Mozilla is getting blacklisted for sending to now-nonexistent addresses, and when they're blacklisted, it's hard to get off
by vacri 9y ago
The 'right to track' here is because Mozilla is getting blacklisted for sending to now-nonexistent addresses, and when they're blacklisted, it's hard to get off the blacklist.
As an example, one company I work for is on the blacklist RFC-Clueless, which blacklists you for not following the RFC and having the required default mailboxes (webmaster@, abuse@, etc). We use gmail, and it was a screw-up in their system - something I got them to fix about 2.5 years ago. Despite multiple requests to get off the RFC-Clueless list (their request link being obfuscated), they've done nothing about it. It's particularly galling that a blacklist that blocks you for 'being a bad netizen' is themselves an atrocious netizen.
So, if a client has an IT dept that subscribes to RFC-Clueless, there's simply no way we can send them email - it's very difficult for our sales staff to convince their contacts to start that conversation with their own IT, especially in the initial stages of the trial.
So I can understand that Mozilla might want to keep themselves off mailing blacklists, especially when they're sending mail to now-dead addresses that have previously asked for mail to be sent.
- Deimorz 9y ago> Mozilla is getting blacklisted for sending to now-nonexistent addresses Not quite, the problem is that the addresses do still exist, but they're inactive and the mail is never being read. It sounds like some blacklists use "continuing to send mail to known-inactive addresses" as an indicator of a bad sender.
- oddlyaromatic 9y ago> So I can understand that Mozilla might want to keep themselves off mailing blacklists So can I, but the desire/need to do this does not imply a "right" to track the opening of messages in the manner initially planned. The reader does however have a right to privacy, whether they link know about a 1x1 image and its effects or not. Email deliverability is a giant pain to have to deal with, of course, so the motivation to overlook this small sacrifice of privacy is pretty high.
- occultist_throw 9y agoIf you can show who's running those lists, and their names, sue them for damages. Garnishment is very much a thing. Admittedly, attacking others in a system that features money as a signifier as status/power isn't usually wise. But given these people are trying to use blacklists as a form of power, this can be used against them. At least if the threat of monetarily loss isn't realized, the fact that you're willing to drag them into court will... expedite any issues you have with being on that list.