Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by lisati

  1. A loud "AGREED", which goes for similar "features" on other software that use alleged address of the sender stored in the headers. Until someone comes up with a way of reliably assessing the trustworthiness of said headers without potentially causing problems for innocent bystanders, it's safer to assume that it's a clue that's never suitable for firing off bounces, nastygrams and other such responses.
  2. That's exactly the sort of thing that prompted me to set up my own email server in preference to using the free Yahoo accounts I used to use. I am one of the many who have had cause to be grumpy with the way Yahoo deals with reports of problems, and could do a rant at this point but will skip it in the interests of not hijacking this thread any more than I have. Good luck.
  3. lisati

    Hat Check

    I'm not a lawyer, but AFAIK, this is bordering on illegal under privacy laws where I live.
  4. Death to the hackers?????? I'm not sure about that: I frequent forums where the word "hackers" sometimes refers to the good guys, and where those that the media refers to "hackers" are sometimes referred to "crackers" in preference to some colourful name that probably shouldn't be repeated here.
  5. True! I recently had a response from Yahoo in connection with an incident that didn't involve discarded attachments but still left me scratching my head and wondering how what I'm assuming was their autoresponder could come up with the particular reply I received. A politely worded response from me to the effect that it didn't make sense elicited the standard Yahoo response about "we have taken appropriate action."
  6. I've had replies like that, followed some time later by responses from confused Yahoo support people. I'm sure many of us could wax lyrical about what seems to be incompetence [at] Yahoo's abuse desk.
  7. I notice that there are multiple "Reply-to:" headers in the offending email as well. I have no idea what good that would do, if any.
  8. I've even had an incoming spam with a forged "Reply-to:" addresses using my own domain. I suspect that it could be a variant of the spam technique that utilizes backscatter to get the spam through, but I only recall noticing one such email.
  9. I'd also be wary of using the "bounce" feature found in MW and some other software: it's too easy to be labelled as a backscatterer.
  10. Which is why I noted that using the envelope sender information isn't infallible. As far as I know, no one item that's available in the message headers and commonly used for detecting spam is completely trustworthy, not even the Received: lines. We are left having to make choices about what weight to place on each clue available that potentially helps us identify the true origin of an unwanted email and where (if anywhere) to send our reports and nastygrams. There are many opportunities for mistakes and differences of opinion.
  11. Short answer: email forwarding, which can be set through a webmail option. Someone sends their rubbish to my yahoo email address, and Yahoo duly forwards it to an address at my own server. It's a waste of Yahoo's bandwidth (and mine) even if it arrives at Yahoo's servers from somewhere other than Yahoo. As far as my server is concerned, it's arriving from Yahoo. As an aside, I've had my moments when I've wanted spamcop to report based on the "From" and "Reply to" address, but have since learned that the "envelope sender" that's seen by servers is usually a more reliable but not completely infallible guide to the true sender. Figuring out what use (if any) to make of "From:" and "Reply-to:" headers is hindered by the fact that these can be easily forged: from a perspective of designing spam filters, it's often easier to leave them well alone.
  12. Agreed that the information is plain wrong. I checked with a number of dnsbl lookup tools and couldn't find any listings.
  13. My experience has been that in spite of Yahoo's stated spam policy - http://docs.yahoo.com/info/guidelines/spam.html - they don't seem to care about spam that passes through their servers. I've even had replies to abuse reports stating something to the effect that because it didn't originate with their servers, they won't do anything. This is largely why I set up my own email server, rejecting what I can during the SMTP dialog, then reporting via Spamcop whatever manages to slip through. The filtering I have in place is a work in progress...... I find it mildly strange, because spam is a waste of everybody's bandwidth.
  14. Ah, the on-going balancing act between zapping the bad guys with a fancy weapon and protecting the innocent bystanders.
  15. The first link took me to an article which stated that the person making the report was mistaken.
  16. Hmmmmmm..I stumbled on this thread while contemplating some issues with Yahoo and how best to deal with them. The auto response cited earlier in this thread is just one example of what I've received trying to bring stuff to Yahoo's attention, as well as the "It didn't originate in our servers" and similar excuses, together with the listings [at] rfc-ignorant. Frustrating as it can be at times, it's a relief to know that I'm not alone.
  17. Agreed. I was having trouble with emails from some of my contacts being blocked due to DNSBL listings that had no obvious connection with the sender, and ended up whitelisting those specific senders.
  18. ***off-topic observation begins*** Agreed, some aspects of dealing with email coming through Yahoo are a pain. I have a couple of issues with Yahoo., which are probably better dealt with elsewhere. <insert rant about forged sender credentials, envelope senders, forwarded emails, and mail loops> ***off-topic observation ends***
  19. Frustrating, isn't it? It's sometimes tempting to put a blanket ban on certain domains and then wait for their well-behaved customers to complain....
  20. I can't presume to speak on behalf of the OP. I have,, however, received notification emails sent by a well-known email provider (who shall remain nameless) which lacked some of the headers that you'd normally expect, such as "Received." It was as if they hadn't configured their system properly.
  21. As others have suggested, it is more common for blocking to be based on problems with the email address, email provider or message content. It could be possible that there's a spam filter somewhere that needs fixing. I had to rethink one of the filters on my own privately run email server after realizing that although it picked up an objectionable phrase correctly, it wasn't written as well as it could be and was occasionally generating false positives. Good luck!
  22. Simple rule of thumb: if there's any doubt about the trustworthiness of the person asking, it's better to err on the side of caution and not give them the information they ask for.
  23. And they are confident that you will be surprised to learn the truth about your fund, which is being held by an employee of the FBI/Fedex/UPS who happens to use a free email account in preference to one authorized by the organization they work for.
  24. I'd advise caution with listing fake email addresses - making sure you don't accidentally include the address of an innocent bystander is probably one of the more important considerations. Cheers, "Lisati"
  • Create New...