Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

> 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,

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

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 >

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

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,

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

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

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

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 :

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

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 >

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

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

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

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

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

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

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

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.

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

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

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

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

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

--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

Re: Email filtering theory and the definition of spam

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