Dnia 7.10.2019 o godz. 23:54:41 Peter pisze: > > We get this question on IRC a lot as well, it's a common problem. > The generic answer I always give is this: > > If you're having problems getting your mail received by major ESPs > you should first check your fcrdns*, then make sure you have SPF, > DKIM and DMARC configured.** Sign up for the dnswl at > http://www.dnswl.org. Also sign up for ESP-specific programs such as > feedback loops, Google postmaster tools and Microsoft's SNDS. Check > the individual postmaster pages for each ESP that you're having > problems with to make sure that you're in compliance with all of > their policies and if you still have problems contact the support > for the ESP. Also check to make sure you're not on any DNSRBLs and > submit removal requests from any you appear on.***
Well, but let's think about it for a while. The very meaning of the word "spam" refers to *content* of the message, not to the way the sending mailserver is configured. It doesn't matter where the message is coming from and how it was sent, the content - and content only - decides if it is spam or not spam. So, if an email that has perfectly legitimate content and not any signs of spam, ends up in spam folder because of the way the sending mailserver is configured, it means that the configuration of the spam filter on the receiving end is obviously *wrong*. Of course, the spam filters can - and do - use SPF, DNS forward-reverse match, blacklists etc. as *hints* if the message can potentially be spam, but in the end the content analysis should have the highest weight in spam-score for the message. If the spam filters pay more attention to things like SPF, DKIM etc. than to the content, then something's certainly wrong with those spam filters, and not with the sender. And we should say it loud and clear, say it publicly, and repeat it as often as we can and everywhere we can. This is the only way to make those big companies see users' dissatisfaction about their policies (not *their* users, but Internet users in general) and possibly force them to improve their spam filters. I was always taught that the main goal in spam filtering is of course filter as much spam as possible, *but* at the same time keeping the number of the errors of second kind (ie. non-spam message being mis-classified as spam) at "virtual zero" level. Errors of second kind are much bigger problem than errors of first kind (ie. not catching an actual spam), because if user accidentally gets one or two spam messages in his/her inbox, he/she can easily delete them; but if a legitimate message is accidentally put into spam folder, the user will probably never see it, as most users don't look into their spam folders at all. And if the user doesn't look there and doesn't correct the mis-classification, the algorithm will still "think" the message is really a spam. Thus, next messages from the same sender have higher chance of being wrongly marked as spam as well. Looks like those big e-mail companies don't care at all about minimizing the number of errors of second kind. This makes e-mail unreliable as a means of communications. You could never know if the message you sent reaches the recipient or not. And when you learn that it hasn't it may be too late, because eg. the event you were asking about has already happened. -- Regards, Jaroslaw Rafa [email protected] -- "In a million years, when kids go to school, they're gonna know: once there was a Hushpuppy, and she lived with her daddy in the Bathtub."
