michaelanglo
-
Posts
288 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by michaelanglo
-
-
20 hours ago, petzl said:
AFAIK Gmail just sort spam not block it??
It used to and you can define a "never send to spam" filter and get the email list posts from Yahoo users
but NOT aol.com any more in ordinary free Gmail (some folk report that some business versions of Gmail don't have this problem),
Gmail take DMARC seriously and so the Lois McMaster Bujold (Mailman) list and email from Baen's Bar have some user posts missing if you read them with Gmail.
-
On 27/03/2018 at 11:46 PM, petzl said:
Gmail use their own spam sorting methods they do not block spam you can add "email addies" to block
https://support.google.com/a/answer/2368132?hl=en
If you get too much spam they do block you
Is that link useful?
admin.google.com is for G Suite accounts only. Regular Gmail accounts cannot be used to sign in to admin.google.com
==
And spam can be blocked
A message from an approved sender will still be blocked if directed to do so by the sender's Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) policy.
==
Hence all users of a mailing list who post using AoL.com addresses will be invisible to Gmail users.
==
-
Thanks, I didn't look forward to finding another email client.
It would be helpful if you give advance notice of such matters though.
--
Wazoo, I didn't see how more details would help. Anyone using the userid%domain notation in the mail account field is presumably aware of it and if they are not so aware mentioning the name of my ten year-old mail client running under Win95B isn't likely to help them *be* aware.
For the historically inclined it's Microsoft Mail & News (immediate precursor of OE).
I discovered the notation/work around somewhere between 2001 (when I was unable to figure out how to access an extra mail account) and July 2003 when I first paid up for the Spamcop mail & filtering service and at first couldn't use POP.
Since that's at least 5 years back I don't remember how or where the information came from.
-
Also posted on the news page:
The percent sign alternative was originally used because buggy old e-mail clients did not support "[at]" in the username field. Modern clients do not have that problem.
So anyone using such a mail client is SOL, eh ?
I also note that POP was rejecting the % form two days ago, it failed for me a hour ago and worked again ten minutes ago.
Down with ex post facto !
-
I should explain that my SpamCop Mail account usage is about 40% direct to account mail (nearly all semi-dictionary spam). On the rest, half POP from a legacy account and a little forwarded from elsewhere, greylisting could have no effect.
I therefore hoped for a reduction of about 40% and got 35% because out of an expected 200 direct to spamcop spams, 26 still got through so used relays (or other servers configued to retry), proofing them against greylisting.
Here is the data for a full month of greylisting.
September '07 2684 spams (89/d), 59 leakers (=2.2 %), 0 false positive(s)
(August was 4369 spams (140/d), 80 leakers (=1.8 %), 0 false positive(s))
So a 37 % reduction, excellent.
Leakage rate still the same , any effect of the new SA was short lived
-
I promised to report on my experience with graylisting
Summary, overall spam received is 35 % down on the average for last month (August).
My first full day wih greylisting was 2007-08-31
The results for the following 11 days were 996 spams 90/day 14 leakers (=1.4 %)
This is a reduction on the 140/day average for August.
(4369 spams, 80 leakers (=1.8 %), 0 false positive(s) )
The improvement in leakage may be due to the new release of SpamAssassin 2007-08-28
I should explain that my SpamCop Mail account usage is about 40% direct to account mail (nearly all semi-dictionary spam). On the rest, half POP from a legacy account and a little forwarded from elsewhere, greylisting could have no effect.
I therefore hoped for a reduction of about 40% and got 35% because out of an expected 200 direct to spamcop spams, 26 still got through so used relays (or other servers configued to retry), proofing them against greylisting.
In other news 53 % of spam received during those 11 days had a source reportable to a Chinese ISP (since I use quick reporting I didn't realise this before - I analysed the text of the emails that quick reporting sends).
-
And if it's sent from a different IP address then an greylist enhancement to look at sending IP addresses (which might be a good idea anyway, see previous post) would nullify any benefit.
Following up to myself, I have now read the greylisting white paper
http://greylisting.org/articles/whitepaper.shtml
and this does use sending server IP addresses as well as From:
Can we have a reference to the details of the actual implementation ?
I also note that there was only one greylisting delay to my forwarded mail, perhaps because
the forwarding ISP inserts the same Return-Path: irrespective of the actual From:
Which is good but may provide a loophole.
-
I suspect the way for spammers to get through GreyListing is to simply send two (or more) spams
The first will be sent for "retry". The spammers second spam (from same IP) is then passed by SpamCop as a "response" to first spam and whitelisted
Yes but there is that set time interval before SpamCop graylisting will let any more with the same "From:" through.
I happened to do this as part of my initial check and both first and second emails, sent minutes apart, were delayed by 50 minutes indicating a '400' response followed by a retry for both.
There is also the point that if the second shot is sent from the same IP address then an hour later this address may be on a blocklist due to the earlier spams.
And if it's sent from a different IP address then an greylist enhancement to look at sending IP addresses (which might be a good idea anyway, see previous post) would nullify any benefit.
-
Most of the usefulness of greylisting comes from email sent directly to your spamcop.net account. If it is forwarded or we POP it for you, greylisting won't help much.
<i>Won't help at all</i> ITYM so switching it off for trusted relays and other forwarders may save trouble.
I have enabled greylisting and will report.
About 30-40 % of my spam is direct to spamcop mail (rest is POP and forward) so there should be some useful benefit.
It does seem to me that server IP addresses rather than or as well as "From:" should be placed on the good list
This would cut down volume of items to remember and save both forwarded and normal mail being delayed for mail from each new correspondent.
I have also come across a mailing list which used a different "From:" for every item (to keep the threading in order).
ocn.ad.jp spam
in SpamCop Reporting Help
Posted
Really? Works fine for me. The Sent folder is good and email attachments sent to the Spamcop report addie can be viewed.
I have so far found their support pretty good.
Why 12 months? Haven't you been using it since Corporate Email Services (CESmail) ceased operations on September 30, 2014