Javier Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I have searched the suggestion forum but I have not seen anybody asking for this feature in the SpamCop webmail. I funnel email from several domains to my SpamCop webmail account. Then, after filtering the junk emails, I have it configured to forward the 'legit' ones to an email address provided by my ISP. The facts are that I have no control over the 'catch-all' of some domains and, as result, my SC webmail account receives an humongous amount of crap addressed to non-existent accounts under these domains, making easy to pass unnoticed the false positives (drowned amidst a sea of spam) when reporting the junk. So, my suggestion is to implement in SC Webmail the ability of checking the incoming email against an user-created list of 'authorized' recipients, and filter/delete the incoming emails not addressed to the 'authorized' email addresses contained into this list. It would be sort of disabling the catch-all for the SpamCop Webmail (and would be a complementary feature to the actual 'whitelist'). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 So, my suggestion is to implement in SC Webmail the ability of checking the incoming email against an user-created list of 'authorized' recipients, and filter/delete the incoming emails not addressed to the 'authorized' email addresses contained into this list. It would be sort of disabling the catch-all for the SpamCop Webmail (and would be a complementary feature to the actual 'whitelist'). A bit of work, not exactly as requested (but noting that as requested, the server-load would be pretty dramatic, in my opinion) ..... actually set up a Filter Rule along the lines of To: field does not contain <valid address> ... set it to run at login ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telarin Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Only problem I see with that is emails that were BCCed to you, as your address would not show up in the headers most likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Javier Posted April 9, 2008 Author Share Posted April 9, 2008 A bit of work, not exactly as requested (but noting that as requested, the server-load would be pretty dramatic, in my opinion) ..... actually set up a Filter Rule along the lines of To: field does not contain <valid address> ... set it to run at login ... That was my first idea, but the filters only would act on the emails in the 'Inbox' and 'Held' folders, without deleting the invalid ones that slip under the SpamAssassin radar and reach my "final" email account (a double filtering for invalid addresses would be necessary: in the SC Webmail and in my mailbox). Thus, I thought about deleting them at arrival to SC Webmail as a more "elegant" and cleaner solution. Regarding the server load, certainly I don't know the innards of the system but, deleting the mis-addressed mails at arrival (and before reporting) wouldn't reduce the amount of reports finally parsed & submitted by SC (and thus the server load)? Only problem I see with that is emails that were BCCed to you, as your address would not show up in the headers most likely. You made a valid point here. Probably it would be necessary to add 'Undisclosed recipients' to the valid "To:" field list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelanglo Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 A bit of work, not exactly as requested (but noting that as requested, the server-load would be pretty dramatic, in my opinion) ..... actually set up a Filter Rule along the lines of To: field does not contain <valid address> ... set it to run at login ... Actually the server load could be quite small. Just enhance the Personal Blacklist to look at the "To: " etc fields (Personal Whitelist already does). Thus Blacklist the entire domain Example.com and whitelist admin[at]example.com, m.smith[at]example.com etc. The first difficulty is that this (this suggestion and the OP's request but not Wazoo's) would stop SpamAssassin etc. from being able to be useful on spam sent to valid addresses. Need a one-way scheme so WhitelistB only overrides whitelist ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Regarding the server load, certainly I don't know the innards of the system but, deleting the mis-addressed mails at arrival (and before reporting) wouldn't reduce the amount of reports finally parsed & submitted by SC (and thus the server load)? You are mixing up / wrapping up a whole myriad of different servers, systems, and applications here. JT's e-mail system/network has over a dozen systems at present just handling incoming e-mail ... once again noting that SpamCop.net e-mail accounts are but a portion of the services he provides. The Parsing & Reporting stuff is handled on the Cisco/Ironport systems over on the opposite U.S. coast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Just enhance the Personal Blacklist to look at the "To: " etc fields (Personal Whitelist already does). Just to clear something up here... Personal Whitelist does NOT look at the To address. Only the Sender and Reply-To: addresses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 A much better solution would be to get those catch-all accounts disabled....are you absolutely *sure* that's not an option? Fewer and fewer people are using a catch-all anymore...spammers ruined that years ago...and any host worth anything at all will enable the disabling of that feature. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelanglo Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 Just to clear something up here... Personal Whitelist does NOT look at the To address. Only the Sender and Reply-To: addresses. "That turns out not to be the case" (Thanks Sir Kevin Renner) I just used 15 minutes finding the October 2007 reference when Pezel and DavidT kindly told us SpamCop Emails Whitelist checks "To:" field and overrides/bypasses all blacklists including Greylisting But that's not complete, and [...] The following headers are checked against the whitelist * Envelope Sender aka Return Path * From: * Sender: Many mailing lists have a "Sender" field added, which remains constant for the list, while the "From" is variable. == http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...amp;#entry60252 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted April 11, 2008 Share Posted April 11, 2008 "That turns out not to be the case" (Thanks Sir Kevin Renner) That is fine, but I still do not believe that to be correct. If I had seen it at that time, I would have voiced my challenge then. The whitelist page specifically states: Mail from users whose email addresses match your whitelist will be passed without checking any DNS blacklists. The blacklist page expands on it: Mail from users whose email addresses match your blacklist will be blocked without checking any DNS blacklists. The email address checked is the envelope sender which is identified in the headers of the email as the Return-Path. This might be different from the From: address shown in the email. Nowhere in either of those descriptions does it state Mail TO email addresses in the whitelist will pass unblocked. Nowhere in any of the official SpamCop documentation does it say that either: http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/303.html As a test, I have whitelisted my biggest spammed addresses (yahoo.com, charter, and spamcop) and I should be able to see this weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 I think that Steven is correct. In that previous thread, I didn't specifically state that the "To" is included...Petzl did that, and I didn't correct him, but rather added what Steven has posted here. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelanglo Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 I think that Steven is correct. In that previous thread, I didn't specifically state that the "To" is included...Petzl did that, and I didn't correct him, but rather added what Steven has posted here. I actually did this experimentally, I think neither myself nor Petzel place any reliance on what is or isn't in the Horde documentation. except as a source of information of what is worth trying. (11 Nov '07) NG spamcop.mail Results are that X-SpamCop-Whitelisted: appears for both Return-Path: and From: items and one can also deduce that Return-Path: is tested before From: because when both are in the Whitelist the Return-Path: item is shown. Discussions in the forum claim that whitelist also looks at To: and Sender: I haven't {yet} verified this though I have checked that Blacklist doesn't look at To:. ==(17 Nov 2007 NG spamcop.mail I can now support the claims in the forum with evidence. I poked about in the mailing lists I get until I found one with a valid e-mail address in the To: field that is not in From: nor any of the other fields you mention above. I whitelisted it and immediately got X-SpamCop-Whitelisted: in the header of the next e-mail from that list. == Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petzl Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 I actually did this experimentally, I think neither myself nor Petzel place any reliance on what is or isn't in the Horde documentation. except as a source of information of what is worth trying. Below an example of whitelisting working http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1790053447za...;action=display I have NZ in my whitelist if a spammer has NZ ending in senders [at] address it is sent directly to my inbox (not that it gets opened just reported) I just use POP not webmail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 I have NZ in my whitelist if a spammer has NZ ending in senders [at] address it is sent directly to my inbox But this doesn't address to "To" issue, does it? I just added one of my various "webmaster" addresses to my SC whitelist, sending test email messages from an unrelated system both before and after explictly "To" that address. The "X-SpamCop-Whitelisted" line was not present in my post-whitelisting test. The reference cited from someone in the newsgroups having performed a test doesn't prove anything...they may very well have goofed up their test. I'm pretty sure that the system works as documented. DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petzl Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 But this doesn't address to "To" issue, does it? I just added one of my various "webmaster" addresses to my SC whitelist, sending test email messages from an unrelated system both before and after explictly "To" that address. The "X-SpamCop-Whitelisted" line was not present in my post-whitelisting test. The reference cited from someone in the newsgroups having performed a test doesn't prove anything...they may very well have goofed up their test. I'm pretty sure that the system works as documented. For me the whitelist works as I expect it to Were just giving a sample of spam showing the whitelist works (using email client Bat Voyager) I cannot recall where I stated that the whitelist looks at the "to" field (It doesnt)? The Whitelist looks at the "from" address if email Client sending/receiving is Outlook Express (perhaps) With the "Bat Voyager" My actual email client, this is changed in headers, to "Return-Path" (which is the whitelisted address) again I rarely use Webmail to receive or send email and were just giving an example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidT Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 I cannot recall where I stated that the whitelist looks at the "to" field (It doesnt)? In this post, made last October: http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...amp;#entry60251 DT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petzl Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 In this post, made last October: http://forum.spamcop.net/forums/index.php?...amp;#entry60251 Thanks fixed/changed it to From field Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenUnderwood Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 I can now support the claims in the forum with evidence. I poked about in the mailing lists I get until I found one with a valid e-mail address in the To: field that is not in From: nor any of the other fields you mention above. I whitelisted it and immediately got X-SpamCop-Whitelisted: in the header of the next e-mail from that list. == And my testing shows just the opposite. I whitelisted my underwood[at]spamcop.net and stevenunderwood[at]yahoo.com the whole weekend and saw nothing whitelisted with those addresses while most of my spam came to those addresses. Could you post a tracking URL for one of yours that was whitelisted? I'm having problems accessing webmail at this moment but I will post one that did not get whitelisted as soon as I do. This one was sent to underwood[at]spamcop.net: http://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z1793664355ze...ff82d3cd720d0bz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.