[GH-ISSUE #784] [Bug] Aliases created with the + modifier get stripped before forwarding #1102

Open
opened 2026-03-14 11:44:28 +03:00 by kerem · 3 comments
Owner

Originally created by @DavidPesticcio on GitHub (Oct 25, 2025).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/anonaddy/anonaddy/issues/784

When using a sieve in an alias address

sender_domain.com+topic@username.addy.io

the alias is created, but the received email is missing the sieve, i.e. +topic is missing when forwarded - shouldn't this be preserved? Otherwise it breaks the ability to filter on the receiving end. 🙁

I could not find anything in the Help, FAQ or Blog sections mentioning this behaviour.

Update: Additionally, it doesn't increment the Sends count when sending via the above formatted email using the send link on the aliases page. It does however increment the Replies count - although no message is received.

Originally created by @DavidPesticcio on GitHub (Oct 25, 2025). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/anonaddy/anonaddy/issues/784 When using a sieve in an alias address ``` sender_domain.com+topic@username.addy.io ``` the alias is created, but the received email is missing the sieve, i.e. `+topic` is missing when forwarded - shouldn't this be preserved? Otherwise it breaks the ability to filter on the receiving end. 🙁 I could not find anything in the Help, FAQ or Blog sections mentioning this behaviour. **Update:** Additionally, it doesn't increment the `Sends` count when sending via the above formatted email using the `send` link on the aliases page. It does however increment the `Replies` count - although no message is received.
Author
Owner

@RokeJulianLockhart commented on GitHub (Nov 22, 2025):

@DavidPesticcio, discussions/460#discussioncomment-6014528 may elaborate somewhat, whereas issues/421#issuecomment-1564442519 explains how this functionality differs, for Addy, from what the RFCs stipulate.

<!-- gh-comment-id:3567068703 --> @RokeJulianLockhart commented on GitHub (Nov 22, 2025): @DavidPesticcio, [`discussions/460#discussioncomment-6014528`](https://github.com/anonaddy/anonaddy/discussions/460#discussioncomment-6014528) may elaborate somewhat, whereas [`issues/421#issuecomment-1564442519`](https://github.com/anonaddy/anonaddy/issues/421#issuecomment-1564442519) explains how this functionality differs, for Addy, from what the RFCs stipulate.
Author
Owner

@DavidPesticcio commented on GitHub (Dec 7, 2025):

@RokeJulianLockhart - Thanks for the info. 👍

I am unable to use X-AnonAddy-Original-To: on the client end (Gmail web UI) - but that is useful to know if I was using SpamAssasin or Procmail etc., or a local MDA/MTA like Postfix or similar.

For now, I have solved my problem - albeit not as granular - by assigning a recipient specifically for the +topic component of each incoming alias.

This way consolidates all the aliases with +topic on the other end, i.e. to one recipient becomes the filter - although one could add a recipient per alias if per alias granularity was required, it's not quite as "nice" a solution as filtering on X-AnonAddy-Original-To: would be.

@willbrowningme - feel free to close this issue unless the future has other plans! 😄

<!-- gh-comment-id:3622647576 --> @DavidPesticcio commented on GitHub (Dec 7, 2025): @RokeJulianLockhart - Thanks for the info. 👍 I am unable to use `X-AnonAddy-Original-To:` on the client end (Gmail web UI) - but that is useful to know if I was using [SpamAssasin](https://spamassassin.apache.org/) or [Procmail](https://pm-doc.sourceforge.net/index.html) etc., or a local MDA/MTA like [Postfix](https://www.postfix.org/) or similar. For now, I have solved my problem - albeit not as granular - by assigning a [recipient](https://app.addy.io/recipients) specifically for the `+topic` component of each incoming [alias](https://app.addy.io/aliases). This way consolidates all the aliases with `+topic` on the other end, i.e. to one recipient becomes the filter - although one could add a recipient per alias if per alias granularity was required, it's not quite as "nice" a solution as filtering on `X-AnonAddy-Original-To:` would be. @willbrowningme - feel free to close this issue unless the future has other plans! 😄
Author
Owner

@RokeJulianLockhart commented on GitHub (Dec 7, 2025):

@DavidPesticcio, you might want to comment this use case beneath discussions/334#discussioncomment-3714035.

<!-- gh-comment-id:3623212468 --> @RokeJulianLockhart commented on GitHub (Dec 7, 2025): @DavidPesticcio, you *might* want to comment this use case beneath [`discussions/334#discussioncomment-3714035`](https://github.com/anonaddy/anonaddy/discussions/334#discussioncomment-3714035).
Sign in to join this conversation.
No labels
bug
pull-request
No milestone
No project
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
starred/anonaddy#1102
No description provided.