On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 12:15:14 +0200, Alessandro Vesely via mailop
wrote:
>Perhaps, a possibility could be to reject if the message is SPF and/or DKIM
>authenticated, still drop otherwise. Would that make sense? I find
>non-authenticated messages where I happen to know that the sending mailbox
On Fri 18/Oct/2019 14:58:01 +0200 Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:21:47 +0200, Alessandro Vesely via mailop
> wrote:
>
>> For blatantly viral attachments, silently dropping the message still seems to
>> be the most appropriate action. Is that a best practice?
>
>
On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 21:11:24 +0200, Thomas Walter via mailop
wrote:
>If you don't look at them anyway, why don't you reject them at the gate
>at first sight?
"Except for research purposes..." You can't look at data you discarded before
it even came to your posession.
OTOH, machines that HELO
Been Processed."
Open a ticket for Hotmail<http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=614866> ?
-Original Message-
From: mailop On Behalf Of Thomas Walter via mailop
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2019 12:11 PM
To: mailop@mailop.org
Subject: Re: [mailop] Do we need Spam folders?
O
On 18.10.19 14:56, Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote:
> My personal client has rules that send messaged from CBL-listed IPs to the
> junk folder and marks them "read". Other than for research purposes, I've not
> looked at one of those in well over a decade.
If you don't look at them anyway,
On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:56:17 +0200, Renaud Allard via mailop
wrote:
>No, dropping an email without anyone knowing is still probably the worst
>thing that can be done, whatever the case is. Refusing at SMTP time with
>a 5XX message is still the best practice.
>Because your antivirus tells you
On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 10:21:47 +0200, Alessandro Vesely via mailop
wrote:
>For blatantly viral attachments, silently dropping the message still seems to
>be the most appropriate action. Is that a best practice?
Absolutely not. And the message disappearance I mention above can happen for
a
On 10/18/19 10:21 AM, Alessandro Vesely via mailop wrote:
On Thu 17/Oct/2019 04:35:53 +0200 Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 13:11:31 +1100, Michelle Sullivan via mailop
wrote:
Worse when they (the receiver) silently discards them... user checks the
spamfolder and
On Thu 17/Oct/2019 04:35:53 +0200 Michael Rathbun via mailop wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 13:11:31 +1100, Michelle Sullivan via mailop
> wrote:
>
>> Worse when they (the receiver) silently discards them... user checks the
>> spamfolder and their inbox and the sender thinks it all went through
On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 13:11:31 +1100, Michelle Sullivan via mailop
wrote:
>Worse when they (the receiver) silently discards them... user checks the
>spamfolder and their inbox and the sender thinks it all went through and
>the email is never seen despite people looking for it and wanting it.
Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote:
On 14 Oct 2019, at 9:29, Chris Wedgwood via mailop wrote:
as things stand today, i think we do
technology has gotten very good but it's not perfect; sometimes spam
isn't detected, and sometimes real messages are detected as spam
I would rather have
Or the "power" users who go through their spam folder and forward every
message in it to 20 abuse/postmaster addresses plus the FBI? Messages that
were automatically determined to be spam.
User's are weird.
Brandon
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 7:19 AM Alexander Zeh via mailop
wrote:
> The thing
Dnia 16.10.2019 o godz. 16:17:03 Alexander Zeh via mailop pisze:
> Why? Because most people are kind of lazy. They don’t want to move spam
> away, even if it’s only one click.
But it's one click only once. Not everytime you open your mailbox. I think
about it as working as follows: when you
The thing is.. maybe technically savvy users don’t need spam folders. But
having „normies“ in mind, like I’m thinking of my parents or friends who work
in a totally different industry, I’m sure we need spam folders.
Why? Because most people are kind of lazy. They don’t want to move spam away,
Dnia 16.10.2019 o godz. 13:01:49 Paul Smith via mailop pisze:
> On 16/10/2019 12:30, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
> >Second case is when you want to*send* mail to someone. Someone is selling
> >something on the Internet, you want to buy it, but in order to do it, you
> >have to send e-mail to
Dnia 16.10.2019 o godz. 13:01:49 Paul Smith via mailop pisze:
> In your first situation, rejecting the messages is very bad. In the
> second situation, rejecting the messages *may* be better than
> accepting and semi-hiding - but only if you have another viable way
> of contacting the recipient.
On 16/10/2019 12:30, Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop wrote:
Second case is when you want to*send* mail to someone. Someone is selling
something on the Internet, you want to buy it, but in order to do it, you
have to send e-mail to the seller's address provided in the ad.
If the person is wanting to
Dnia 16.10.2019 o godz. 03:43:10 Ángel via mailop pisze:
>
> Suppose you bought service/product X, but didn't receive the
> confirmation email.
> Note: You are an end user, and don't have access to the server logs. ;)
>
> Did the have an issue sending you the mail? Was it rejected locally as
>
On 2019-10-14 at 18:02 -0700, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
> I mean, we do offer with sectioned inbox to move other messages out of
> the default view (since we're using
> labels, everything is still in the label, just different views), so we
> could offer that for spam as well... but frankly,
>
Yes, it is.
Suppose you bought service/product X, but didn't receive the
confirmation email.
Note: You are an end user, and don't have access to the server logs. ;)
Did the have an issue sending you the mail? Was it rejected locally as
spam? Is it pending that their financial department actually
on Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 12:58:51PM -0700, Brandon Long via mailop wrote:
> I used to think, when I ran my own server, that five or so spam messages a
> day, what's the big deal... until I just got tired of it. It was often
> more than the actual useful messages in my mailbox every time I checked.
> The problem isn't lack of honoring the bounce. The problem is what
> to make out of it when multiple recipients are present.
that's quite rare
usually it's 1:1
> Also, assuming that a reject after DATA is strictly content-related
> is, well, an assumption.
historically it could/did happen
> What MTAs do not honor this?
sorry, i don't know what's sending when this happens
> How does 550 after DATA result in backscatter?
perhaps because domain is 'old' spammers sometimes spam from $random@
those messages hit various providers which do *not* check dmarc, but
then forward (either
I agree with Laura, Brandon and Michael. Spam folders give receivers
options and adding user features to them only adds confusion for most
users.
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 6:13 AM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop
wrote:
> Dnia 15.10.2019 o godz. 09:44:10 Paul Smith via mailop pisze:
> >
> > However,
Dnia 15.10.2019 o godz. 09:44:10 Paul Smith via mailop pisze:
>
> However, our spam filter actually sends me an email containing a
> list of filtered emails every day, to prod me to take a look. It's
> sorted and colourised by 'spamminess', so the most likely to be
> false positives are shown at
On 15.10.19 10:44, Paul Smith via mailop wrote:
> Ditto. Yesterday, I got 400 emails. About 200 were spam that was
> filtered, about 15 were spam that wasn't filtered, the rest I wanted at
> one level or another. No way do I want 200 spam messages shoved into my
> Inbox.
So instead of
On 14/10/2019 19:39, Philip Paeps via mailop wrote:
On 2019-10-14 06:07:31 (-0700), Thomas Walter via mailop wrote:
Do we even need Junk/Spam-Folders?
I mean how much mail gets through the first "block directly" level on
your site? Every now and then a wave comes through and results in a
bad
On 14 Oct 2019, at 23:39, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote:
On 15.10.19 00:34, Chris Wedgwood via mailop wrote:
Doesn't "550 Requested action not taken: We don't like you." apply
after DATA?
it does
most severs honor this but not all
(i experience this sometimes, my domain somtimes gets a
On 15.10.19 00:34, Chris Wedgwood via mailop wrote:
>> Doesn't "550 Requested action not taken: We don't like you." apply
>> after DATA?
>
> it does
>
> most severs honor this but not all
>
> (i experience this sometimes, my domain somtimes gets a lot of
> backscatter)
What MTAs do not honor
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 3:26 PM Jaroslaw Rafa via mailop
wrote:
> Dnia 14.10.2019 o godz. 19:48:03 Laura Atkins via mailop pisze:
> >
> > What one recipient sees as spam another recipient not only wants,
> they’ve actually gone through a COI process to confirm they want it.
> >
> > Spamfolders
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 3:19 PM Thomas Walter via mailop
wrote:
>
>
> On 14.10.19 23:59, Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote:
> > This is not a pure performance issue. It's more a matter of not having
> > the data at hand to decide whether the message is ham or spam. To do so,
> > filters need user
On 14/10/2019 22:59, Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote:
> Protocol-wise, what is a sender supposed to do with a post-DATA
> rejection? Is that rejection associated to one of the RFC-5321 RCPT TOs?
> All of them? None, because it's actually a content issue? What if the
> policies for each recipient
On 14 Oct 2019, at 15:18, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote:
On 14.10.19 23:59, Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote:
This is not a pure performance issue. It's more a matter of not
having
the data at hand to decide whether the message is ham or spam. To do
so,
filters need user feedback.
You can
Dnia 14.10.2019 o godz. 15:32:07 Chris Wedgwood pisze:
> > The question was about if we really need to *move* the messages
> > marked as spam into a separate folder and hide it from user's view
> > by default.
>
> silently hiding messages would be very frustrating and hard to
> understand and
> Doesn't "550 Requested action not taken: We don't like you." apply
> after DATA?
it does
most severs honor this but not all
(i experience this sometimes, my domain somtimes gets a lot of
backscatter)
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
Dnia 14.10.2019 o godz. 11:17:36 Jay Hennigan via mailop pisze:
>
> >Depending on your client you might even just mark or group them in the
> >Inbox, so people can take a quick glance and delete them if they want to.
>
> The result will be the same, particularly if grouped.
No, it won't be the
> The question was about if we really need to *move* the messages
> marked as spam into a separate folder and hide it from user's view
> by default.
silently hiding messages would be very frustrating and hard to
understand and debug
___
mailop mailing
Dnia 14.10.2019 o godz. 19:48:03 Laura Atkins via mailop pisze:
>
> What one recipient sees as spam another recipient not only wants, they’ve
> actually gone through a COI process to confirm they want it.
>
> Spamfolders allow consumer mailbox providers to filter mixed mailstreams in a
> more
On 14.10.19 23:59, Luis E. Muñoz via mailop wrote:
> This is not a pure performance issue. It's more a matter of not having
> the data at hand to decide whether the message is ham or spam. To do so,
> filters need user feedback.
You can still have feedback if you don't move emails to a spam
Dnia 14.10.2019 o godz. 15:07:31 Thomas Walter via mailop pisze:
>
> Do we even need Junk/Spam-Folders?
>
> I mean how much mail gets through the first "block directly" level on
> your site? Every now and then a wave comes through and results in a bad
> mail or two more, but can't people handle
On 14 Oct 2019, at 14:20, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote:
Of course I don't have the experience in the last category, but I'd
like
to learn. Why can't you reject emails post-DATA?
Is it a performance issue? Google or Bing find 935.000.000 search
results in 0,60 seconds for the word "spam",
On 14.10.19 20:57, Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
> Having the mail bounce at the edge is a VERY useful signal for any spammers
> trying to enhance their deliverability.
Not bouncing mails at edge is a very useful signal for any spammer too,
because he delivered an email and is getting paid?
On 2019-10-14 13:43:18 (-0700), Thomas Walter via mailop wrote:
On 14.10.19 20:39, Philip Paeps via mailop wrote:
While I'm clearly not a representative sample of the average email
user,
3 or 5 spam messages per day is two orders of magnitude short of the
mark on a bad day for me.
So ... Yes:
On 14 Oct 2019, at 13:43, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote:
Why not reject those instead and have the sender deal with it?
Because filter error rates and the need for the feedback signal from the
recipient.
-lem
___
mailop mailing list
On 14.10.19 20:39, Philip Paeps via mailop wrote:
> While I'm clearly not a representative sample of the average email user,
> 3 or 5 spam messages per day is two orders of magnitude short of the
> mark on a bad day for me.
>
> So ... Yes: we need spam folders.
But you still have to check
On 14.10.19 20:17, Jay Hennigan via mailop wrote:
> A lot, in my case a good portion is "targeted" B2B spam, more than half
> of which is sent via ESPs. If people can handle 3 or 5 spams per day,
> can they handle 30 or 50? 300 or 500? How does it scale?
Yes, but you still have to handle these
On 2019-10-14 at 15:07 +0200, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote:
> Even more interesting: In Germany, this can be seen as not delivering an
> email to the recipient which is against the law. The user might be using
> POP3 or is not subscribed to the IMAP folder and therefore does not see
> the SPAM
ysis
> "Your Spam Specimen Has Been Processed."
> Open a ticket for Hotmail<http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=614866> ?
>
> From: mailop On Behalf Of Luis E. Muñoz via
> mailop
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 10:18 AM
> To: MailOp
> Subject: Re: [mail
I won't speak to that interesting interpretation of postal mail applying to
email (and here I thought Germany thought email was a telco)...
but we've witnessed a quite opposite effect, which is that users treat
their email as unreliable, even if it is reliable, so they can tell people
they didn't
On 14 Oct 2019, at 11:57, Michael Wise via mailop wrote:
Having the mail bounce at the edge is a VERY useful signal for any
spammers trying to enhance their deliverability.
It's a great signal for anybody caring for the fate of a message. This
is why we cannot have nice things :-)
-lem
via mailop
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 10:18 AM
To: MailOp
Subject: Re: [mailop] Do we need Spam folders?
On 14 Oct 2019, at 9:29, Chris Wedgwood via mailop wrote:
as things stand today, i think we do
technology has gotten very good but it's not perfect; sometimes spam
isn't detected, an
> On 14 Oct 2019, at 17:29, Chris Wedgwood via mailop wrote:
>
> as things stand today, i think we do
>
> technology has gotten very good but it's not perfect; sometimes spam
> isn't detected, and sometimes real messages are detected as spam
And, sometimes…
What one recipient sees as spam
On 2019-10-14 06:07:31 (-0700), Thomas Walter via mailop wrote:
Do we even need Junk/Spam-Folders?
I mean how much mail gets through the first "block directly" level on
your site? Every now and then a wave comes through and results in a
bad mail or two more, but can't people handle 3 or 5
On 14 Oct 2019, at 9:07, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote:
Hello fellow email-enthusiasts,
all this discussion about emails being marked as spam or not and why
always makes me think about one thing:
Do we even need Junk/Spam-Folders?
It depends on who "we" are...
I have worked primarily in
On 10/14/19 06:07, Thomas Walter via mailop wrote:
Do we even need Junk/Spam-Folders?
I mean how much mail gets through the first "block directly" level on
your site? Every now and then a wave comes through and results in a bad
mail or two more, but can't people handle 3 or 5 spams in their
On 14 Oct 2019, at 9:29, Chris Wedgwood via mailop wrote:
as things stand today, i think we do
technology has gotten very good but it's not perfect; sometimes spam
isn't detected, and sometimes real messages are detected as spam
I would rather have the email bounce during SMTP transaction.
as things stand today, i think we do
technology has gotten very good but it's not perfect; sometimes spam
isn't detected, and sometimes real messages are detected as spam
___
mailop mailing list
mailop@mailop.org
Hello fellow email-enthusiasts,
all this discussion about emails being marked as spam or not and why
always makes me think about one thing:
Do we even need Junk/Spam-Folders?
I mean how much mail gets through the first "block directly" level on
your site? Every now and then a wave comes through
58 matches
Mail list logo
