In this case, it seems like "recency" was a big issue - the change wasn't recent in any sense of the word, since it seems like the feature has been there since

In this case, it seems like "recency" was a big issue - the change wasn't recent in any sense of the word, since it seems like the feature has been there since at least mid 2020. [0] The explanation in this case also seemed to focus on a (false) assertion the app uploaded the user's contact list - the app wasn't doing that. If a user turned on fetching favicons (it was off by default, with a red-coloured privacy warning in the app), then the app would fetch a favicon for received emails in non-junk folders, directly from the server in question. If apps are expected to treat the user's DNS server as hostile, then web browsers had better talk about how they send user browsing history to third parties (by querying DNS!). Similarly, the app connecting to the site and asking for a favicon is not really a leak to a third party, as the domain is owned by the sending user. If they chose to outsource their website to a third party, that's their choice (and problem). If the app was uploading user contacts to a third party, that would be very bad. It wasn't. But rival apps do (for monetisation etc.) Making benign apps write declarations that suggest it is doing something akin to that is (to be cynical) helpful for Google and other ad/data supported business model actors, who benefit from obscuring their practices by forcing others to make similar-looking declarations. [0] https://github.com/M66B/FairEmail/commit/57cf22b1193b43ca9795f7561bdb0427427ed734 https://github.com/M66B/FairEmail/commit/57cf22b1193b43ca979...