Recycled Yahoo addresses and PII leaks

Infoweek interviewed a number of people who acquired new Yahoo addresses during Yahoo’s address recycling and reuse process. It seems that at least for some small percentage of former Yahoo users, there is a major risk of information going to the wrong people.

I can gain access to their Pandora account, but I won’t. I can gain access to their Facebook account, but I won’t. I know their name, address and phone number. I know where their child goes to school, I know the last four digits of their social security number. I know they had an eye doctor’s appointment last week and I was just invited to their friend’s wedding […]

I still don’t think this address recycling will cause delivery problems. Some senders may see an increase in “this is spam” hits from new account holders, but as long as they remove addresses and stop mailing people that shouldn’t cause delivery issues over the long term.
I still suggest that companies using email addresses as account “keys” should understand the implications of an email account (Yahoo or otherwise) being recycled. This isn’t just a Yahoo issue, all ISPs recycle usernames. In this case, Yahoo just did it more publicly and in a shorter time frame than most ISPs do.
Using an email address as a key and failing to do any upkeep or data maintenance will result in PII leaked to third parties. Banks, social networks, online fora, mailing lists and websites should all have ways to address email address recycling, if only to protect user information. Yahoo may not have handled the address recycling process well, but that only means the companies using email addresses as keys need to have plans and processes in place to verify the addresses in use.

Does mail volume contribute to blocking?
Yahoo trying to cope with misdirected email

Related Posts

Yahoo releases user names

According to TechCrunch, Yahoo has started notifying people if their desired username is available. For users who asked for names that aren’t available now, Yahoo has a solution. They will be keeping wishlists for users for the next 3 years. If those usernames are abandoned and expire, Yahoo will notify people by email.
Any sender using email as an account key (either for resetting passwords or granting access) should be careful about releasing accounts to Yahoo users. Yahoo has established a new header type (Require-recipient-valid-since, currently going through the IETF standards process) to minimize the chance that the wrong people get access to other accounts tied to a recycled mailbox.
For those of us who didn’t put in some addresses we, too, can create username wishlists, we’re just going to pay $1.99 for the privilege.

Read More

Images at Yahoo

For a while, Yahoo was giving preferential “images always on” treatment to Return Path Certified senders. The tricky part of this was the senders had to register a DKIM selector key with Yahoo. I had a lot of (somewhat rude) things to say about this particular design decision.
Over the last few months, a number of senders have complained about being unable to update their selector keys with Yahoo. (Insert more rude comments about how broken it is to use the selector as a part of reputation.) Around the same time, a few of us have noticed that Yahoo seems to be turning on a lot of images by default. A few of the ESP delivery folks collaborated with me on checking into this. They could confirm that images were on by default for some of their customers without certification and without selector key registration.
Earlier this week, Return Path sent out an email to users that said that Yahoo would no longer be turning images on by default for Return Path Certified IPs.

Read More

Gmail says no expectation of privacy, kinda.

Consumer Watch put out a press release yesterday about a court filing made by Gmail that says Gmail users have no expectation of privacy. I pulled a bunch of the docs yesterday, but have had no real time to read or digest them.
For recap users everything I pulled (and stuff other people have pulled) are available at Archive.org.
The initial complaint was filed under seal at the request of Google. The redacted complaint doesn’t tell us a lot, but it’s available for people to read if they’re interested.
The doc everyone is talking about is Google’s Motion to Dismiss. Everyone is up in arms about Google saying, in that filing, “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.” (page 28, line 9). What no one seems to have mentioned is that this is actually a quote from a case that Google is referencing. The whole paragraph may lead one to a different conclusion.

Read More