Stackexchange started to use URLs in E-Mails, that look like phishing and have nothing to do with the real stackexchange domains.
Example:
<a href="http://sg-links.stackoverflow.email/wf/click?upn=pDzA4vSaPmKy14REDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDREDACTEDPyU-3D">https://stackexchange.com/users/REDACTED?tab=inbox</a>
So the text looks like this:
And the actual link is:
So it has many signs of a phishing mail:
- Redirect URLs instead of real URLs
- Different link text and links
- Link to a totally different domain
- Link to a new TLD (.email) with a similar name than the real site
- Very long URL
- Tracking parameters in the URL
(The e-mail is probably real and the domain seems to belong to Stack Exchange. But I cannot know this without quite a bit of additional research. This is very bad. Especially when someone starts using another look-alike domain and I am already used to strange links in Stack Exchange E-Mails)
PLEASE STOP DOING THIS!
When you send me a link, please just use a plain link. This does not only apply for links, that have URLs as their link text like the input link, but to the linked question and the links like "Edit email settings" as well.
Regarding the argument that using another domain protects cookies, I would suggest just not to use a redirect URL at all. Sending E-Mails using a third-party service is okay. But you do not need to use the tracking URLs of the third-party service. When it is mandatory for this service, use another provider where it is not mandatory.
A Spam-Filter report summing up to 5.12 (marked as Spam):
- HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1 (2)
- PHISHING (1.669287) [stackexchange.com->stackoverflow.email]
- URI_COUNT_ODD (1) [9]
- DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW (-0.5) [stackoverflow.email,reject]
- MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN (0.5)
- MV_CASE (0.5)
- FORGED_SENDER (0.3) [[email protected],[email protected]]
- R_SPF_ALLOW (-0.2) [+ip4:168.245.32.199:c]
- R_DKIM_ALLOW (-0.2) [stackoverflow.email:s=s1]
- ZERO_FONT (0.1) [1]
- MIME_GOOD (-0.1) [multipart/alternative,text/plain]
- MANY_INVISIBLE_PARTS (0.05) [1]
Explanation of the non-obvious filter Tags:
- URI_COUNT_ODD: A odd number of URIs in multipart/alternative message
- MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN: The message ID does not contain a FQDN
- MV_CASE: Mime-Version vs. MIME-Version
- ZERO_FONT: A zero-sized font was used
- MANY_INVISIBLE_PARTS: Many parts are visually hidden
stackexchange.com
or maybestackoverflow.com
without any subdomains would be a good start. Personally I would keep the links as plain as possible to avoid any confusion. And especially links with a different URL in the link text are a sign of phishing and even earn spam points in some spam filters. For tracking a small&from=email
URL parameter would be okay and not looking like phishing. Be careful with using abbreviations, the domainso.email
in your comment does not seem to be the same asstackoverflow.email
.whois sg-links.stackoverflow.email
, the dump doesn't look related towhois stackoverflow.com
, and also looks blandly generic, as a fishing registration might well look. As a friend mentions, there's no way to know this isn't fishing so one should suspect it is.