Re: [mailop] Google: Increase in false positives?

2016-09-03 Thread Renaud Allard via mailop
On 02/09/16 18:35, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote: On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Renaud Allard via mailop mailto:mailop@mailop.org>> wrote: On 09/02/2016 10:28 AM, Brandon Long via mailop wrote: > The spam team would love to send all unauthed mail to the spam label or > even reject it (

Re: [mailop] Google: Increase in false positives?

2016-09-02 Thread Jim Popovitch
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 11:12 PM, John Levine wrote: >>But I'm not sure what native would look like. After Lavabit, would the >>type of folks who use pgp actually trust our implementation if they >>couldn't see it and verify it? > > In my experience there are two kinds of PGP users. One is the ha

Re: [mailop] Google: Increase in false positives?

2016-09-02 Thread John Levine
>But I'm not sure what native would look like. After Lavabit, would the >type of folks who use pgp actually trust our implementation if they >couldn't see it and verify it? In my experience there are two kinds of PGP users. One is the hard core who go to key signing parties with their passports

Re: [mailop] Google: Increase in false positives?

2016-09-02 Thread Brandon Long via mailop
We obviously have the web extension, though I haven't seen any updates there recently either. But I'm not sure what native would look like. After Lavabit, would the type of folks who use pgp actually trust our implementation if they couldn't see it and verify it? Also, the spam problem becomes c

Re: [mailop] Google: Increase in false positives?

2016-09-02 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 14:27:39 -0400, Jim Popovitch said: > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 4:28 AM, Brandon Long via mailop > wrote: > > The spam team would love to send all unauthed mail to the spam label or even > > reject it (they call it no auth no entry). > I'd love to see "no auth no entry", but I'd

Re: [mailop] Google: Increase in false positives?

2016-09-02 Thread Jim Popovitch
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 4:28 AM, Brandon Long via mailop wrote: > The spam team would love to send all unauthed mail to the spam label or even > reject it (they call it no auth no entry). I'd love to see "no auth no entry", but I'd prefer to see native PGP. ;-) -Jim P. ___

Re: [mailop] Google: Increase in false positives?

2016-09-02 Thread Michael Peddemors
On 16-09-02 09:35 AM, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote: On that note, wouldn't that just 'move the problem'? If we waved our magic wands and made all e-mail require SPF, DKIM, and DMARC or it goes to junk, a mail server compromise would lead to a bunch of spam that was SPF-allowed, DKIM-signed, and DMARC

Re: [mailop] Google: Increase in false positives?

2016-09-02 Thread Wosotowsky, Adam
the swamp. --adam From: mailop [mailto:mailop-boun...@mailop.org] On Behalf Of Aaron C. de Bruyn Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 12:36 PM To: Renaud Allard Cc: mailop@mailop.org Subject: Re: [mailop] Google: Increase in false positives? On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Renaud Allard via mailop

Re: [mailop] Google: Increase in false positives?

2016-09-02 Thread Aaron C. de Bruyn
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Laura Atkins wrote: > Gmail is pretty smart, they do a “best guess” SPF where if the sending IP > is the same as your MX then it’s considered authed even if it’s not > explicitly set. That covers a lot of small servers that aren’t > professionally maintained. > Ye

Re: [mailop] Google: Increase in false positives?

2016-09-02 Thread Aaron C. de Bruyn
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 1:39 AM, Renaud Allard via mailop wrote: > On 09/02/2016 10:28 AM, Brandon Long via mailop wrote: > > The spam team would love to send all unauthed mail to the spam label or > > even reject it (they call it no auth no entry). > > > > IMHO, that would be a good idea. If one

Re: [mailop] Google: Increase in false positives?

2016-09-02 Thread Laura Atkins
> On Sep 2, 2016, at 2:02 AM, Louis Crossing > wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Brandon Long > wrote: > or even reject it (they call it no auth no entry) > > I would think that's a step too far lol. Far too many people don't have SPF > or DKIM. > Going t

Re: [mailop] Google: Increase in false positives?

2016-09-02 Thread Louis Crossing
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Brandon Long wrote: > or even reject it (they call it no auth no entry) I would think that's a step too far lol. Far too many people don't have SPF or DKIM. Going to spam doesn't seem too unreasonable though. Cheers, Louis Crossing | VentraIP Australia *Lead Te

Re: [mailop] Google: Increase in false positives?

2016-09-02 Thread Renaud Allard via mailop
On 09/02/2016 10:28 AM, Brandon Long via mailop wrote: > The spam team would love to send all unauthed mail to the spam label or > even reject it (they call it no auth no entry). > IMHO, that would be a good idea. If one big player does it, no-one can ignore it, so this enables the others to do

Re: [mailop] Google: Increase in false positives?

2016-09-02 Thread Brandon Long via mailop
The spam team would love to send all unauthed mail to the spam label or even reject it (they call it no auth no entry). We're not there yet, though. Though, we mostly do that for ipv6 at this point, and we're cranking on all of the big pieces that are remaining. But that's probably not the cause

Re: [mailop] Google: Increase in false positives?

2016-09-01 Thread Louis Crossing
Google announced some changes with regards to warnings a few weeks ago: http://googleappsupdates.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/making-email-safer-with-new-security-warnings-in-gmail.html I haven't seen a big increase in stuff going to my spam folder but I have seen a big increase in emails flagged with

[mailop] Google: Increase in false positives?

2016-09-01 Thread Aaron C. de Bruyn
Just wondering if anyone else has noticed a *huge* uptick in false positives with GMail or Google Apps? Before this week, I'd get one legit messages in spam folder every month or two. This week, lots of stuff from mailing lists (several on Google Groups) is going to spam as well as a few messages