Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

[Rupert Gallagher]

> good news is if non spammers begin to use pgp signed/encrypted mails, it
would not be spam anymore

If they send spam from an identifiable server within our legal reach, we turn 
it to our local authority who exerts judiciary power to either shut down the 
server, in case they are pure spammers, or obtain monetary compensation 
otherwise. We reject unidentifiable servers, and anything from 
out-of-legal-reach.

We are serious about spam. We are not in USA, where RFC loopholes are written 
to allow the NSA to send anonymous email with spyware, or companies to profit 
from massmail marketing. Spam assassins we are for real. Fuck the RFC loopholes.

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

[Rupert Gallagher]

Interesting to kreme.

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 03:14, Benny Pedersen  wrote:

> Rupert Gallagher skrev den 2018-02-10 23:26: > Interesting... how ? > > 
> Final-Recipient: rfc822; krem...@kreme.com > Original-Recipient: 
> rfc822;krem...@kreme.com > Action: failed > Status: 5.7.1 > Remote-MTA: dns; 
> mail.covisp.net > Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.7.1 : Helo command > rejected: 
> > Mail for this TLD is not allowed > 
> -- > message/rfc822 i am to tired 
> of thinking what happended here

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

[Rupert Gallagher]

I am not protonmail.

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 03:12, Benny Pedersen  wrote:

> Rupert Gallagher skrev den 2018-02-10 23:18: > pay their clients for each 
> spam message they deliver, they would be > all bankrupt, except us. if 
> protonmail worked, spamasassin could not scan spam :=) oh well, pgp is cool, 
> but as its implented on protonmail it does not matter at all i think this is 
> very sad if custommers on protonmail find that info, apps seems to be secure, 
> webmail seems to be secure, but servers makes the local pgp crypt, so it on 
> sarvers in safe state, it just not secure where the copys are that was why i 
> dropped it, its good, but not perfekt, i am not perfekt either, loosed my 
> crupt password :=) good news is if non spammers begin to use pgp 
> signed/encrypted mails, it would not be spam anymore

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

[Rupert Gallagher]

I read the RFC as anybody else, and get as close as possible to cite it when 
rejecting. The fact that the RFC has loopholes is not my fault.

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 01:17, Reindl Harald  wrote:

> Am 10.02.2018 um 23:18 schrieb Rupert Gallagher: > We do not serve freemail 
> or large ISPs, so our use case is different > than yours. We serve businesses 
> who own their email by law. When an > employee sends or receives an email, 
> their employer owns the email, by > law. We can, and we do reject spam: the 
> recipient will never see it, by > contract. Possibly-spam gets redirected for 
> manual inspection. Last > january we scored a perfect zero spam on end-users 
> mailbox, and about 10 > manual inspections with zero false positives. If 
> providers would pay > their clients for each spam message they deliver, they 
> would be all > bankrupt, except us that is all fine for you but you pretend 
> all the time that what you are doing is required by this and that RFC which 
> is most of the time proven to be a lie or at best lack of understanding on 
> your side there is a difference between reject spam and pretend whatever 
> action is mandated by a RFC

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

[@lbutlr]

On 2018-02-10 (15:26 MST), Rupert Gallagher  wrote:
> 
> Interesting... 
> 
> 
> Final-Recipient: rfc822; krem...@kreme.com
> Original-Recipient: rfc822;krem...@kreme.com
> Action: failed
> Status: 5.7.1
> Remote-MTA: dns; mail.covisp.net
> Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.7.1 : Helo command rejected:
> Mail for this TLD is not allowed

Your point?

-- 
...but the senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not
explain his nudity.

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

[@lbutlr]

On 2018-02-10 (12:07 MST), Joseph Brennan  wrote:
> 
> --On February 9, 2018 at 5:46:39 PM -0700 "@lbutlr"  wrote:
>> RFC 822 hasn't been valid for nearly two decades.
> 
> Yes of course. My point was that even decades ago, To and Cc headers were not 
> required by RFC 822, so our contributor should not say that he is blocking 
> for violating RFC 822.

But even if they were required in RFC 822, RFC 822 has been obsoleted not just 
once, but twice.

So, someone claiming to be blocking based on RFC 822 in 2018 is showing their 
total ignorance of RFCs since it matters not at all what RFC 822 says. and 
hasn't since 2822 was accepted (and that has been obsoleted in turn, so it is 
also not valid).

> He can say he is blocking because he wants mail to have a To header. He can 
> block because a subject line contains the letter Z if he wants to. That is a 
> different line of argument than calling an RFC violation.

Sure, but calling an RFC violation is also different from calling an RFC 
violation for an INVALID RFC.

-- 
NOBODY LIKES SUNBURN SLAPPERS Bart chalkboard Ep. 7F23

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

[Benny Pedersen]

Rupert Gallagher skrev den 2018-02-10 23:26:

Interesting...


how ?



Final-Recipient: rfc822; krem...@kreme.com
Original-Recipient: rfc822;krem...@kreme.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.7.1
Remote-MTA: dns; mail.covisp.net
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.7.1 : Helo command
rejected:
Mail for this TLD is not allowed
--
message/rfc822


i am to tired of thinking what happended here

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

[Benny Pedersen]

Rupert Gallagher skrev den 2018-02-10 23:18:

pay their clients for each spam message they deliver, they would be
all bankrupt, except us.


if protonmail worked, spamasassin could not scan spam :=)

oh well, pgp is cool, but as its implented on protonmail it does not 
matter at all


i think this is very sad if custommers on protonmail find that info, 
apps seems to be secure, webmail seems to be secure, but servers makes 
the local pgp crypt, so it on sarvers in safe state, it just not secure 
where the copys are


that was why i dropped it, its good, but not perfekt, i am not perfekt 
either, loosed my crupt password :=)


good news is if non spammers begin to use pgp signed/encrypted mails, it 
would not be spam anymore

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

[Rupert Gallagher]

Interesting...

Final-Recipient: rfc822; krem...@kreme.com
Original-Recipient: rfc822;krem...@kreme.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.7.1
Remote-MTA: dns; mail.covisp.net
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550 5.7.1 : Helo command rejected:
Mail for this TLD is not allowed
--
message/rfc822

...

>

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

[Rupert Gallagher]

We do not serve freemail or large ISPs, so our use case is different than 
yours. We serve businesses who own their email by law. When an employee sends 
or receives an email, their employer owns the email, by law. We can, and we do 
reject spam: the recipient will never see it, by contract. Possibly-spam gets 
redirected for manual inspection. Last january we scored a perfect zero spam on 
end-users mailbox, and about 10 manual inspections with zero false positives. 
If providers would pay their clients for each spam message they deliver, they 
would be all bankrupt, except us.

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 18:04, @lbutlr  wrote:

> On 2018-02-10 (00:01 MST), Rupert Gallagher wrote: > > The RFC should be 
> amended. If not, we still reject on common sense. Our mail, our rules. My 
> rule is that I do everything I can to reject mail. I look at the IPs, 
> headers, Subject, and content. I look for suspicious attachments, dangerous 
> attachment types, and scan for the millions of Windows viruses. I compare the 
> message to other messages and if at all possible I do not accept the mail. In 
> fact, my main job is trying to come up with new and innovative and effective 
> ways to reject even more mail. I'm up to about 97% rejection rate now. 
> However, once I accept the mail, it is delivered to the recipient, no matter 
> what. Now, it might be delivered to a "Probably spam" folder, and that folder 
> may expire mail after a week or so, but it is *delivered* and the recipient 
> has the opportunity to reclassify that mail as being "ham". -- I mistook thee 
> for thy better Hamlet Act III scene 4 @protonmail.com>

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

[Bill Cole]

On 10 Feb 2018, at 16:00 (-0500), Alex wrote:


Can we really trust end-users to properly classify email and not
infect themselves with something or follow a phish without knowing?


Nope. However, we need to act like we do to some degree while doing the 
best we can to make it difficult for them to do dumb things.



--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Currently Seeking Steady Work: https://linkedin.com/in/billcole

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

[Alex]

Hi,

On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 12:04 PM, @lbutlr  wrote:
> On 2018-02-10 (00:01 MST), Rupert Gallagher  wrote:
>>
>> The RFC should be amended. If not, we still reject on common sense. Our 
>> mail, our rules.
>
> My rule is that I do everything I can to reject mail. I look at the IPs, 
> headers, Subject, and content. I look for suspicious attachments, dangerous 
> attachment types, and scan for the millions of Windows viruses. I compare the 
> message to other messages and if at all possible I do not accept the mail. In 
> fact, my main job is trying to come up with new and innovative and effective 
> ways to reject even more mail. I'm up to about 97% rejection rate now.
>
> However, once I accept the mail, it is delivered to the recipient, no matter 
> what.
>
> Now, it might be delivered to a "Probably spam" folder, and that folder may 
> expire mail after a week or so, but it is *delivered* and the recipient has 
> the opportunity to reclassify that mail as being "ham".

Can we really trust end-users to properly classify email and not
infect themselves with something or follow a phish without knowing?

Many of our customers have additional services such as those from
Wombat to train users on what to do with suspicious emails and yet
they *continually* fall for both these fake test phish emails and the
real ones, many times resulting in more than one system compromise.

At the same time, withholding emails from users results in a lack of
confidence that their emails aren't being redirected to the ether...

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

[Joseph Brennan]

--On February 9, 2018 at 5:46:39 PM -0700 "@lbutlr"  
wrote:




RFC 822 hasn't been valid for nearly two decades.


Yes of course. My point was that even decades ago, To and Cc headers were 
not required by RFC 822, so our contributor should not say that he is 
blocking for violating RFC 822.


He can say he is blocking because he wants mail to have a To header. He can 
block because a subject line contains the letter Z if he wants to. That is 
a different line of argument than calling an RFC violation.



-- Joseph Brennan

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

[@lbutlr]

On 2018-02-10 (00:01 MST), Rupert Gallagher  wrote:
> 
> The RFC should be amended. If not, we still reject on common sense. Our mail, 
> our rules.

My rule is that I do everything I can to reject mail. I look at the IPs, 
headers, Subject, and content. I look for suspicious attachments, dangerous 
attachment types, and scan for the millions of Windows viruses. I compare the 
message to other messages and if at all possible I do not accept the mail. In 
fact, my main job is trying to come up with new and innovative and effective 
ways to reject even more mail. I'm up to about 97% rejection rate now.

However, once I accept the mail, it is delivered to the recipient, no matter 
what.

Now, it might be delivered to a "Probably spam" folder, and that folder may 
expire mail after a week or so, but it is *delivered* and the recipient has the 
opportunity to reclassify that mail as being "ham".

-- 
I mistook thee for thy better Hamlet Act III scene 4