On 2021-02-09 14:47, Chris via mailop wrote:
On 2021-02-08 21:09, Dave Warren via mailop wrote:
\
You could always turn on + addressing on M365...
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/recipients-in-exchange-online/plus-addressing-in-exchange-online
Admittedly it is fairly new, and opt-
On 2021-02-08 21:09, Dave Warren via mailop wrote:
\
You could always turn on + addressing on M365...
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/recipients-in-exchange-online/plus-addressing-in-exchange-online
Admittedly it is fairly new, and opt-in for reasons described on the
link above, b
On 8 Feb 2021, at 21:20, Dave Warren via mailop wrote:
On 2021-02-08 16:14, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
[...]
The "de-tagging" tactic that Al noted has existed, although I don't
see much evidence of it in recent years. I think it may be that
enough people who use tagged addresses give tagged
On 2021-02-08 16:14, Bill Cole via mailop wrote:
On 8 Feb 2021, at 17:03, Richard Bewley via mailop wrote:
The critical feature in '+' tagging (and equivalents using other
characters or patterns) is the ability to create aliases on-the-fly in a
namespace that the user controls such that the m
On 2021-02-08 15:03, Richard Bewley via mailop wrote:
Only this weekend I was trying to help an old colleague with a migration from
Gsuite to M365. The #1 complaint... was some of his minions were seemingly
crippled by the lack of this function.. and I was thinking err aliases?
Aliases?
On 8 Feb 2021, at 17:03, Richard Bewley via mailop wrote:
+1 to Al. (no pun intended for the '+'.)
Only this weekend I was trying to help an old colleague with a
migration from Gsuite to M365. The #1 complaint... was some of his
minions were seemingly crippled by the lack of this function.. a
least I am not alone ;o)
Richard
-Original Message-
From: Al Iverson
Sent: 08 February 2021 17:46
To: mailop
Subject: Re: [mailop] [E] Re: Some Days I think that Gmail isn't even trying to
stop outbound spam..
I'm going to go wide (and unpopular) on this one and say that t
I'm going to go wide (and unpopular) on this one and say that this is
just another reason address plussing is crappy.
Even the desired use case is very easily exploited.
Bad guys can just strip the +tag and then you lose your visibility
into where they got the address from.
I guess if it's all you
Didn't take Google spammers long to figure out using + addressing to try
and get by spam filters.. or personal block lists..
Return-Path:
From: "Bitcoin Trader"
Judging by volume, I am sure that there are no sane rate limiters in
place..
I would think that any use of a + address, usually
: Saturday, 6 February 2021 at 4:58 AM
To: mailop@mailop.org
Subject: Re: [mailop] [E] Re: Some Days I think that Gmail isn't even trying to
stop outbound spam..
Although I'm not terribly qualified to comment on Gmail's policies or design
decisions, I thought I'd throw in a
Although I'm not terribly qualified to comment on Gmail's policies or
design decisions, I thought I'd throw in an anecdote about the "Report
Spam" user experience:
A random guy I talked to in a bar (it was a work trip, he asked why I was
in town, etc) told me that he used the "Report Phishing" func
Dnia 5.02.2021 o godz. 15:03:01 Grant Taylor via mailop pisze:
> Changing the effort involved /might/ make a difference. E.g. have
> delete be a one click action and report be a two click action vi a
> confirmation (blocking modal) dialog box.
>
> Aside: The confirmation dialog box might also p
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021, Grant Taylor via mailop wrote:
On 2/5/21 1:44 PM, Jay Hennigan via mailop wrote:
I blame the big webmail providers for this. The "Delete" and "Junk" buttons
are too similar in the UI. Simply changing "Junk" to "Report as spam" would
help a lot.
I don't think the label wil
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 12:58 Jay Hennigan via mailop
wrote:
> Simply changing "Junk" to "Report as
> spam" would help a lot.
Unfortunately no, it would not.
- Marcel
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
On 2/5/21 1:44 PM, Jay Hennigan via mailop wrote:
I blame the big webmail providers for this. The "Delete" and "Junk"
buttons are too similar in the UI. Simply changing "Junk" to "Report as
spam" would help a lot.
I don't think the label will make much difference.
Changing the effort involved
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021, Jay Hennigan via mailop wrote:
On 2/5/21 09:41, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop wrote:
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 9:18 AM Thomas Walter via mailop
wrote:
You can not trust users to identify spam.
Sure you can. You can trust them to identify what *they* consider to be
sp
On 2/5/21 09:41, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. via mailop wrote:
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 9:18 AM Thomas Walter via mailop
wrote:
You can not trust users to identify spam.
Sure you can. You can trust them to identify what *they* consider to be spam.
It just doesn't jive with what we consider to be
Also, a trusted user can be hacked and his account hijacked to send spam.
> Le 5 févr. 2021 à 18:25, Marcel Becker via mailop a écrit
> :
>
>
>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 9:18 AM Thomas Walter via mailop
>> wrote:
>
>>
>> You can not trust users to identify spam.
>
> This. A Thousand times
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 9:18 AM Thomas Walter via mailop
> wrote:
>
> You can not trust users to identify spam.
Sure you can. You can trust them to identify what *they* consider to be spam.
It just doesn't jive with what we consider to be spam.
That is, always has been, and always will b
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 9:18 AM Thomas Walter via mailop
wrote:
>
> You can not trust users to identify spam.
>
This. A Thousand times this. A lot of us privileged with the insight into
how mail technically works (or so) have difficulties grasping how real
people use mail. And the available abuse
Hello,
On 05.02.21 17:23, Andrew C Aitchison via mailop wrote:
> Would it be useful to include a link in each email header, similar to
> List-Unsubscribe: and relatives, but unique to each message sent,
> so that recipients could give similar feedback to the sending service ?
You can not trust us
On Fri, 2021-02-05 at 08:32 -0800, Marcel Becker via mailop wrote:
>
> > I don't see ignoring spam to decrease expenses
> >
>
> I see you actually didn’t read Brandon’s mail.
>
On the contrary. Each starts from the position of having gotten rich
giving guns to children, and proceeds to discuss
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 08:07 Michael Orlitzky via mailop
wrote:
>
> Abuse reports for non-abuse also scale linearly.
No.
> I don't see ignoring spam to decrease expenses
>
I see you actually didn’t read Brandon’s mail.
___
mailop mailing list
mailo
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021, Camille - Clean Mailbox via mailop wrote:
Not an easy to determine what is a justified abuse report and what is not...
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 4:38 AM Michael Orlitzky via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
Pay more and more people to do it, until the number of unhandled a
Inspired by the two exchanges quoted below:
GMail (and presumably other ESPs wit web frontends and mail apps)
has a "report spam" button for human's to ...
report individual messages as spam, which I belive is fed back into
the spam-classifier.
Would it be useful to include a link in each emai
On Fri, 2021-02-05 at 07:26 -0800, Marcel Becker via mailop wrote:
>
> So you would gladly pay thousands of people to deal with abuse
> reports
> which are, well, not actually abuse reports. And a lot of them. I
> wouldn't.
> For the sake of the sanity of those people alone.
>
Abuse reports for
Not an easy to determine what is a justified abuse report and what is not...
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 4:38 AM Michael Orlitzky via mailop <
> mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
>> Pay more and more people to do it, until the number of unhandled abuse
>> reports at the end of the day is zero. It scales li
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 7:58 PM Brandon Long via mailop
wrote:
>
> We can always do better. When people start to complain, it probably means
> we're missing something new or have let the low level things grow too much.
> Thanks.
>
I really admire you. That you took that time to explain the actua
On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 4:38 AM Michael Orlitzky via mailop <
mailop@mailop.org> wrote:
>
> Pay more and more people to do it, until the number of unhandled abuse
> reports at the end of the day is zero. It scales linearly.
>
So you would gladly pay thousands of people to deal with abuse reports
w
29 matches
Mail list logo
