4 ms·

> But open the email and you don’t see that text anywhere! In the email industry, we call this a "pre-header". The bit about "multi-part email" is pure nonsens

> But open the email and you don’t see that text anywhere! In the email industry, we call this a "pre-header". The bit about "multi-part email" is pure nonsense. If you put any text above the body, it won't render in the email but will still be parsed by the inbox preview function (since it ignores any html it sees). This was mostly an exploit back in the day, but clearly email clients love it because they doubled down on supporting it. Having a different from and reply-to is also built into the way email was designed. Both of these features are built into every email client and service. I thought this was going to be a complaint about their clearly hyperbolic messaging, but OP is really frustrated about some of the most basic features of email. I wonder if he has yet learned that the letters he gets from the White House are not actually sent from the White House.

lmc 5y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
etskinner 5y ago
The email doesn't have a different From and Reply To, it has an email address where the sender's name should be. The author's complaint is that the sender claims to be one email, when it's actually from another.
- legitster 5y ago
  Fair point! Although the name field isn't particularly sacred in its own way (your inbox may already be littered with things like "No Reply" or "Taco @ Trello"). I suspect this really comes down to spam filters. Most emails would generally avoid a shell game like this for fear of spam filters - but I imagine emails from Wikimedia have enough authority that they can get away with it more.
DominikPeters 5y ago
I just looked through my email, and you're right that many companies use preheaders (though usually with display: none). But I would classify most of them as summaries of the email content. The email from Jimmy Wales, in contrast, uses it for deceptive purposes: it shows a completely different text fragment that sounds like a brief personal email. Also, just because the "email industry" routinely uses bad practices, that doesn't make it okay for wikimedia to do so.
- _3u10 5y ago
  It's not a bad practice, it's the preferred method by their customers. You can tell people's real preferences by the actions they take based on messaging. In aggregate a hard sell like this is people's preferred way of buying. The people who aren't going to buy unsubscribe increasing deliverability, the people who are going to buy are pushed off the fence into buying. On every email a sale is made, either you close them on a reason they can donate, or they close you on a reason they can't. Make no mistake, a sale is made. Guy says he'd donate if he didn't get emails like this, 5 years of not donating, and not donating before their email campaign, proved that was a lie.
  - password4321 5y ago
    So the ends justify the means
    - _3u10 5y ago
      it’s market preference. No sane company caters their marketing to people who aren’t buying. For instance Nike customers like social justice marketing, many of their non-customers find the tactics abhorrent. Customers of Wikipedia like information being at risk non-customers find it abhorrent. Does the email not contain an unsubscribe link? Or any other illegal practice? Are they harvesting emails off the internet or did the OP enter their email and continue to remain subscribed to content they dislike?
- legitster 5y ago
  The ideal use of preheader is to cut away some of the chaff in the head of the email - text about logging in, account info, etc. They are tough to consistently plan for as each email client chooses a different length of text to preview. We've tested some pretty funky attention-grabbing ones, but nothing as blatantly exploitative as these. I really only see this kind of stuff coming in donation emails - I suspect recipients are more forgiving of it when it comes from a non-profit.
pfortuny 5y ago
The from: address trick is nasty, though, deceitful according to the expected usage.
- mattl 5y ago
  It's also just not well done. It would be trivial for them to send the email from jimmy@wikipedia.org. I'm actually glad they use a consistent email address for this stuff though as it makes it easier to file.
op00to 5y ago
It's not a different "from" and "reply to". Read the article. They're putting an email address in the HUMAN NAME part of the "From".
5- 5y ago
agreed with you on pre-header, but > having a different from and reply-to is not about what the op is complaining. the offending header is > From: "jimmy@wikipedia.org" <donate@wikimedia.org> i.e. the address uses a display-name (in rfc2822 nomenclature) made to look like an unrelated, personal email address. (and the reply-to actually matches from) i wouldn't quite call it abuse but it is certainly deceptive.
rahimnathwani 5y ago
> The bit about "multi-part email" is pure nonsense. No it's not. Emails can have both text and HTML versions, and the email client will decide which one to show in different contexts (e.g. if someone is on a device that can't show formatting and/or image content). Using the text part to include content that is never intended to be rendered as the full email is abuse of this feature. > Having a different from and reply-to is also built into the way email was designed. What you're describing is from being jimmy@ and having reply-to as donate@ But this is not what the article describes. The emails do not have a separate reply-to address. They have a from line which is something like: From: "legitster@legitster.com" <rahim@encona.com> i.e. using the 'name' part of the from header to make it seem like the email is from a different email address.
- bellyfullofbac 5y ago
  In theory the message representation can probably be video, audio (for display-less devices), HTML and plain text. The content of the message should be the same for each version (e.g. a CEO announcing a buyout, it'd be silly if a different version announces bankruptcy instead), but that's probably not a must since it can't be policed.

lmc 5y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

etskinner 5y ago

The email doesn't have a different From and Reply To, it has an email address where the sender's name should be. The author's complaint is that the sender claims to be one email, when it's actually from another.

legitster 5y ago
Fair point! Although the name field isn't particularly sacred in its own way (your inbox may already be littered with things like "No Reply" or "Taco @ Trello"). I suspect this really comes down to spam filters. Most emails would generally avoid a shell game like this for fear of spam filters - but I imagine emails from Wikimedia have enough authority that they can get away with it more.

DominikPeters 5y ago

I just looked through my email, and you're right that many companies use preheaders (though usually with display: none). But I would classify most of them as summaries of the email content. The email from Jimmy Wales, in contrast, uses it for deceptive purposes: it shows a completely different text fragment that sounds like a brief personal email. Also, just because the "email industry" routinely uses bad practices, that doesn't make it okay for wikimedia to do so.

_3u10 5y ago
It's not a bad practice, it's the preferred method by their customers. You can tell people's real preferences by the actions they take based on messaging. In aggregate a hard sell like this is people's preferred way of buying. The people who aren't going to buy unsubscribe increasing deliverability, the people who are going to buy are pushed off the fence into buying. On every email a sale is made, either you close them on a reason they can donate, or they close you on a reason they can't. Make no mistake, a sale is made. Guy says he'd donate if he didn't get emails like this, 5 years of not donating, and not donating before their email campaign, proved that was a lie.
- password4321 5y ago
  So the ends justify the means
  - _3u10 5y ago
    it’s market preference. No sane company caters their marketing to people who aren’t buying. For instance Nike customers like social justice marketing, many of their non-customers find the tactics abhorrent. Customers of Wikipedia like information being at risk non-customers find it abhorrent. Does the email not contain an unsubscribe link? Or any other illegal practice? Are they harvesting emails off the internet or did the OP enter their email and continue to remain subscribed to content they dislike?
legitster 5y ago
The ideal use of preheader is to cut away some of the chaff in the head of the email - text about logging in, account info, etc. They are tough to consistently plan for as each email client chooses a different length of text to preview. We've tested some pretty funky attention-grabbing ones, but nothing as blatantly exploitative as these. I really only see this kind of stuff coming in donation emails - I suspect recipients are more forgiving of it when it comes from a non-profit.

pfortuny 5y ago

The from: address trick is nasty, though, deceitful according to the expected usage.

mattl 5y ago
It's also just not well done. It would be trivial for them to send the email from jimmy@wikipedia.org. I'm actually glad they use a consistent email address for this stuff though as it makes it easier to file.

op00to 5y ago

It's not a different "from" and "reply to". Read the article. They're putting an email address in the HUMAN NAME part of the "From".

5- 5y ago

agreed with you on pre-header, but > having a different from and reply-to is not about what the op is complaining. the offending header is > From: "jimmy@wikipedia.org" <donate@wikimedia.org> i.e. the address uses a display-name (in rfc2822 nomenclature) made to look like an unrelated, personal email address. (and the reply-to actually matches from) i wouldn't quite call it abuse but it is certainly deceptive.

rahimnathwani 5y ago

> The bit about "multi-part email" is pure nonsense. No it's not. Emails can have both text and HTML versions, and the email client will decide which one to show in different contexts (e.g. if someone is on a device that can't show formatting and/or image content). Using the text part to include content that is never intended to be rendered as the full email is abuse of this feature. > Having a different from and reply-to is also built into the way email was designed. What you're describing is from being jimmy@ and having reply-to as donate@ But this is not what the article describes. The emails do not have a separate reply-to address. They have a from line which is something like: From: "legitster@legitster.com" <rahim@encona.com> i.e. using the 'name' part of the from header to make it seem like the email is from a different email address.

bellyfullofbac 5y ago
In theory the message representation can probably be video, audio (for display-less devices), HTML and plain text. The content of the message should be the same for each version (e.g. a CEO announcing a buyout, it'd be silly if a different version announces bankruptcy instead), but that's probably not a must since it can't be policed.