Jump to content

Dangerman

Members
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Dangerman

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Dangerman

    How is this possible?

    Yes, that is exactly right. All the greylisting system is doing is testing the integrity of the mailserver which is delivering mail to your inbox, so if your mail is being forwarded from a domain host to your Spamcop mailbox it will achieve absolutely nothing, since it is always your domain host's mailserver which is delivering to Spamcop. Ditto if you are forwarding from another mailbox - it will be your ISPs mailserver which will be challenged, not the spammer's. And POP'ing is by its nature bypassing the greylisting system completely, since nothing is being delivered to Spamcop in the first place; you are going off and retrieving it instead. If you are forwarding directly from a domain one option is to use a domain host who uses greylisting. I use Netnames in the UK, and although I was initially loathe to use greylisting it reached a stage where the volume of spam was getting unmanageable: I didn't have time to review my held folder properly any more, so occasional false positives were getting dumped anyway, and so the risk of greylisting blocking the occasional legitimate message made me think it was worthwhile giving it a try. The reality is that greylisting has resulted in the number of spam messages I receive each day dropping from literally thousands to a couple of hundred, and I have only come across one person who has had problems getting mail through to me (who is with a strange little ISP I have never heard of before whose mailservers are presumably badly configured). Edited to say: beaten to it by Andrew!
  2. Me neither - have had a Spamcop account for many years and have never been aware of any limit, and quickly checking my inbox I have got, for instance, an almost 20mb attachment I received last week. You mentioned that your emails are being forwarded, and I agree that it is more likely to be a limit on the outgoing server. If the forwarding is direct from your domain host and a limit at their end turns out to be the problem if you PM me I will let you know who I use. Also (purely hypothetically now), if you are running Exchange don't forget that it has its own default attachment size limits, and so although the email made it into the inbox OK it would then be rejected when Exchange received it.
  3. Dangerman

    How is this possible?

    Well, there probably is a "middle ground" area here where some improvement could be made. What I would LOVE to have would be a facility like the existing whitelist / blacklist where you could block based on a user-defined list of keywords (filters don't work for me as I don't use webmail). No automatic reporting, but anything which had your particular pet hate word(s) in the subject line could be automatically diverted to held mail. I would probably have quite a lot of biological terms included in my "hatelist"; a gynaecologist might choose not to. And why would it not be sensible to switch to automatic reporting of emails with spammy subject lines? Literally just fished an email out of the "held" folder, entitled "Fancy a new partner?", addressed to one of my colleagues. It was actually an email from a car dealership she has bought a car from in the past, trying to sell her a new Peugeot Partner car. Now, aside from the fact that they probably DESERVE to be reported for using such a spammy subject line (and possibly also prosecuted for crimes against marketing), this would be an ideal candidate for an automatic reporting system to catch. Human involvement in the process is what gives the Spamcop system credibility.
  4. I think this is the crux of the issue here. I had a similar situation a while back, where I started receiving spam from a golf equipment supplier. Reported it via Spamcop, and got an email back from the Deputies after a couple of days saying the sender was claiming I had subscribed and was false-reporting, and would I please explain. When I looked into it I found that this company had an online golf game, which you could only play if you entered an email address. Well, of course nobody in their right mind is going to leave their real address, so somebody used anyoldname[at]mydomain.com. And of course the golf supplier didn't do any sort of verification of the address, and I start getting newsletters I had never signed up for .... But of course for me this IS spam, and this may well be the same for the other reporters in this particular case. Just because some people would find a golf newsletter interesting, and just because the supplier is "legitimate" and trying his best, doesn't mean that people receiving mail they have never signed up for from a clueless admin should be vilified for reporting it as spam. And just out of interest, I am not a rabid anti-spammer and in this particular case once I had established that they were indeed "genuine but clueless" I gave them my address so they could unsubscribe me, together with some advice on how to clean up their list and verify addresses properly in the future.
  5. Many thanks for the suggestion. I had thought about that, but I am actually very happy with the way Spamcop is working at present; I don't really want to reinvent the wheel by trying to write my own version of SpamAssassin. I have already built up fairly extensive whitelisting on my mailbox, so what I am talking about is perhaps three or four messages caught in error every day, out of perhaps 1,000+ pieces of spam. I have also analysed the messages that get caught, and it doesn't seem to be any particular blocklist that catches them, so relaxing the filtering to ensure no false positives in the heldmail would have to be across the board and cause a lot of spam to get released into my inbox; it wouldn't just be a case of turning SpamAssassin down a notch. As I said earlier, I have managed to fine-tune the saved search in Thunderbird quite well so it finds the caught genuine messages fairly well (I have also incorporated, for instance, a "password" into everyone's email signatures, which is one of the strings Thunderbird searches for so it always identifies replies to messages we have sent), and so it is that process I would really like to automate. However, whether there is actually anything out there which will do that is another matter .... Thanks again for the suggestion.
  6. Hi everyone Just wondering if anyone had any suggestions for an IMAP client or similar which could apply rules to my held mail folder to automatically transfer any good messages found into my inbox? Basically, I am now getting too much spam every day to manually sift through it looking for the occasional false positive. I have therefore set up a saved search in Thunderbird, and have been able to fine tune this to quite successfully identify the few good messages which have been caught in error. However, I would now like to automate this process, and was wondering if anyone had got any suggestions of an IMAP client which could run rules like this on the held mail folder and then transfer any messages identified as "non-spam" into the inbox. Unfortunately Thunderbird won't do this as by default its rules check the inbox first (unless someone knows a workaround for this?). Fairly flexible as to platform for this, as I have either an SBS 2003 server or an "always-on" Win2K machine which it could run on. Many thanks in advance.
  7. Dangerman

    [Resolved] trouble reporting to website

    Sorry for causing the confusion here, it has now started working for me again!! It was certainly not working for me all yesterday afternoon (UK time), which was why I came on here to see if anyone else was having similar problems, but whatever was causing that must have resolved itself in the meantime. But in any case many thanks for the help, and for pointing out the security implications of doing it that way.
  8. Dangerman

    [Resolved] trouble reporting to website

    Well, I think I am having the same problem as described here. To do my spam reporting I have always logged on using the URL: mailsc.spamcop.net/reportheld?action=heldlog]http://myusername%40spamcop.net:mypassword...?action=heldlog As was stated above, this stopped working on IE many moons ago when it was patched, but I have continued doing this quite happily using Firefox ever since. Am I right in my reading of the situation that this facility has now been "switched off" on the Spamcop server? If so does anyone know if there is a particular reason for this please? The reason this is an issue for my is that I have four separate mail accounts, and so the cookie login doesn't work for me as I have to constantly log in and out to deal with the different accounts. The URL method has been working perfectly for me, as I have four tabs on my Firefox homepage which take me straight into the held mail for all my accounts. Many thanks.
  9. Yes, a couple of weeks ago, in response to the announcement of the changes, I posted that I had started seeing a bit more spam slipping through, and it is still happening. As I said at the time, it is still catching 99% of the spam though.
  10. Dangerman

    Giving SPAMmers a taste...

    Yes, I use a variation on this theme myself, except using three Spamcop accounts instead: 1. The main account receives mail for all my "live" email accounts on my various domains. I don't filter this particularly aggressively. Obviously the held mail on this account needs to be checked regularly and fairly carefully for false positives. However, after a "bedding in" period of forward-and-whitelisting any legitimate mail which has got caught, false positives are now very rare indeed. 2. I have an "ex-staff" account, to which mail to all old email addresses is sent. This account is set to filter much more aggresively, and again after a "bedding in" period of forward-and-whitelisting false positives are very unusual. The held mail on this account obviously won't need to be checked as often if you don't want to, and you know when checking this account you are less likely to find legitimate mail anyway. 3. I have a "spamtrap" account. I use this when spammers have been kind enough to make up email addresses at my domains (and then sell these addresses on to other spammers too). Any mail coming to any of these addresses I *know* is spam, and this account is set to hold all incoming mail for immediate reporting. The held mail page for this mailbox is actually set as my browser homepage, so every time I go on the internet I first quick-report the spam which has been caught to feed Spamcop's filters (takes a couple of seconds each time). Don't forget to forward-and-whitelist the reports coming from Spamcop though! Hope this helps.
  11. Dangerman

    Can Not Log in

    Yep, I am getting the same.
  12. Yes, is there any way of doing this please? I currently have four Spamcop mailboxes, and I have links set up to take me into VER for all of them. I would certainly start to use the Webmail interface if I didn't have to manually log in to each mailbox. Thanks.
×