Plusnet
Saturday 6th September 2008Login | Register | Help
Home » Forum » Service Discussion » Community Support » Postini Email Security Trial
Pages: 1 ... 65 66 [67] 68 69 ... 80

Postini Email Security Trial

  • Strat
  • Posts: 2306
  • AKA fcel
  • View Profile
« Reply #1056 on 23/01/2008, 14:50 »
Thanks James.

Now I know it's not me but I do know who it is. Wink

I've never used code tags anyway as I didn't know what they were for Embarrassed

</Off Topic>
I still believe I voted wisely in the December 2007 Community Site Moderator Elections
Regards Dick...Proud American Deluxe Stratocaster Owner
Useful Links: New Glossary Index or Home Phone Tariffs or Exchange Info or Member Rankings
Logged
« Reply #1057 on 23/01/2008, 15:23 »
Quote from: James_H on 23/01/2008, 14:17
It can, but if you use code tags, it forces the text to be formatted as you enter it. If you use quote tags instead, it allows lines to break over pages and allows it to fit within the constraints of the page.

I normally always use the quote method but didn't here because it is an email header contains data spammers may grab and using code makes it hard to do that using net bots as I understand it.

However as I had removed my own email address and was only protecting other mail servers and IP addresses from being spammed and attacked I won't bother in future, especially as it affects everyone viewing that page of the thread and not just me.
Logged
« Reply #1058 on 23/01/2008, 17:29 »
Quote from: Capvermell on 23/01/2008, 15:23
Quote from: James_H on 23/01/2008, 14:17
It can, but if you use code tags, it forces the text to be formatted as you enter it. If you use quote tags instead, it allows lines to break over pages and allows it to fit within the constraints of the page.

I normally always use the quote method but didn't here because it is an email header contains data spammers may grab and using code makes it hard to do that using net bots as I understand it.

There's no difference between the code or quote methods.  They just tell the forum to display them in a certain font size, decoration colour etc.  It'll make no difference to whether or not a spammer can automate harvesting the details from it.
Logged
« Reply #1059 on 23/01/2008, 17:35 »
Quote from: fishter on 23/01/2008, 17:29
There's no difference between the code or quote methods.  They just tell the forum to display them in a certain font size, decoration colour etc.  It'll make no difference to whether or not a spammer can automate harvesting the details from it.

I was always led to believe in other web forums that posting email addresses with code around them made them significantly more secure against automated spambots that trawl the web.
Logged
« Reply #1060 on 23/01/2008, 17:36 »
Quote from: Capvermell on 23/01/2008, 13:53
Now why exactly is Plusnet not classing messages like this as Spam?

This has the 2strike:clear header. Presumably, if the fix had to be rolled back this morning (again), that is still saving spam from being tagged??
Logged
« Reply #1061 on 23/01/2008, 17:39 »
Quote from: ChrisL on 23/01/2008, 17:36
This has the 2strike:clear header. Presumably, if the fix had to be rolled back this morning (again), that is still saving spam from being tagged??

Shouldn't that be causing spam not to be tagged.

Hey ho its Plusnet.  Naturally we expect one major foul up after another..............

« Last Edit: 23/01/2008, 17:41 by Capvermell »

Logged
  • Bob
  • Plusnet Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 3800
  • View Profile WWW
« Reply #1062 on 23/01/2008, 19:05 »
Quote from: Capvermell on 23/01/2008, 13:53
I got five of these 75% Sale Off On P Fizer messages yesterday and they were all marked as Spam 2 through to 5 by Plusnet's interpretation of the Postini scores apart from the one below.  It seems to score near 0 on the Postini S rating (whatever that may be) and is also marked as qtine but still failed to be classed as Spam by Plusnet.  Thunderbird 2.0.9 worked out it was spam from my previous spam marking with no problem

Now why exactly is Plusnet not classing messages like this as Spam?

I think you're being a little harsh here Capvermell.

The example you quoted will get marked as [-SPAM-] once this work is completed.

We've been taking a lot of customer feedback on board regarding how we should use the Postini headers to spam score emails. If you have any suggestions that you think would improve this then please let us know.
Bob Pullen
Plusnet Comms Team
Service Status :: RSS :: Email
Free broadband - so where's the catch?
Logged
« Reply #1063 on 23/01/2008, 19:16 »
Quote from: Bob on 23/01/2008, 19:05
If you have any suggestions that you think would improve this then please let us know.

Bob,

Where is it explained by Plunet what the individual Postini Spam rating class scores mean.

No doubt this was covered somewhere in the previous 72 pages but I don't really have time to plough through all of them.

Also why is this email not currently marked anywhere by Plusnet as being Spam then?
Logged
  • Strat
  • Posts: 2306
  • AKA fcel
  • View Profile
« Reply #1064 on 23/01/2008, 19:26 »
Sent on the 21st....arrived on the 23rd but I didn't expect to see it at all as it's been through Postini twice.

Quote
Envelope-to: me@home.co.uk
Delivery-date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:33:41 +0000
Received: from exprod5mx209.postini.com ([64.18.0.68] helo=psmtp.com)
     by pih-sunmxcore09.plus.net with smtp (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1JHZB7-0006lL-78
     for me@home.co.uk; Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:33:41 +0000
Received: from source ([212.159.14.213]) (using TLSv1) by exprod5mx209.postini.com ([64.18.4.14]) with SMTP;
   Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:33:34 PST
Received: from [212.159.66.246] (helo=exchange.server.local)
    by ptb-relay02.plus.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1JGwV4-0004Jm-3q
   for me@home.co.uk; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:15:42 +0000
Received: from exchange.server.local ([192.168.1.1]) by fairport2000sbs.fairport.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:15:34 +0000
Keywords: disclaimer
Received: by exchange.server.local (Microsoft Connector for POP3 Mailboxes 5.00.2195) with SMTP (Global POP3 Download) id MSG01212008-131531-20732.me@work.uk.com; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:15:31 -0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914
Received: from exprod5mx216.postini.com ([64.18.0.75] helo=psmtp.com)  by pih-sunmxcore19.plus.net with smtp (PlusNet MXCore v2.00) id 1JGwSB-0003CW-Su   for me@work.uk.com; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:12:44 +0000
Received: from source ([65.54.246.77]) by exprod5mx216.postini.com ([64.18.4.10]) with SMTP; Mon, 21 Jan 2008 05:12:42 PST
Received: from BAY130-W38 ([65.55.135.73]) by bay0-omc1-s5.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 21 Jan 2008 05:12:42 -0800
Message-ID: <BAY130-W382BB2D9DAC8DB74069813B43D0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
   boundary="_2257e6d7-62e2-47a8-929a-25288d38191c_"
X-Originating-IP: [xxx.xxx.xx.xxx]
From: Me <me@hotmail.com>
To: <me@work.uk.com>
Subject: Test for Forwarding
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:12:42 +0000
Importance: Normal
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jan 2008 13:12:42.0311 (UTC) FILETIME=[4E127570:01C85C2F]
X-pstn-neptune: 1/1/1.00/90
X-pstn-levels:     (S:77.24967/99.90000 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:97.0282 C:98.6951 )
X-pstn-settings: 1 (0.1500:0.1500) gt3 gt2 gt1 r p m c
X-pstn-addresses: from <me@hotmail.com> [db-null]
X-PN-VirusFiltered: by PlusNet MXCore (v4.00)
x-fsavag4mse-ts: 59e7e0be25cd66a7
x-fsavag4mse-Version: ServerName 'Servername', FSSMTPHK Release 6.62 Build 110
X-pstn-neptune: 3/1/0.33/64
X-pstn-levels:     (S:31.08997/99.90000 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:97.0282 C:98.6951 )
X-pstn-settings: 1 (0.1500:0.1500) gt3 gt2 gt1 r p m c
X-pstn-addresses: from <me@hotmail.com> [21/1]
X-PN-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v4.00)
I still believe I voted wisely in the December 2007 Community Site Moderator Elections
Regards Dick...Proud American Deluxe Stratocaster Owner
Useful Links: New Glossary Index or Home Phone Tariffs or Exchange Info or Member Rankings
Logged
  • Strat
  • Posts: 2306
  • AKA fcel
  • View Profile
« Reply #1065 on 23/01/2008, 19:29 »
Quote from: Capvermell on 23/01/2008, 19:16
Where is it explained by Plunet what the individual Postini Spam rating class scores mean.

Try here for starters
I still believe I voted wisely in the December 2007 Community Site Moderator Elections
Regards Dick...Proud American Deluxe Stratocaster Owner
Useful Links: New Glossary Index or Home Phone Tariffs or Exchange Info or Member Rankings
Logged
« Reply #1066 on 23/01/2008, 21:53 »
Quote from: Capvermell on 23/01/2008, 17:39
Quote from: ChrisL on 23/01/2008, 17:36
This has the 2strike:clear header. Presumably, if the fix had to be rolled back this morning (again), that is still saving spam from being tagged??

Shouldn't that be causing spam not to be tagged.
Half a dozen of one ... ...

Postini seems to add X-pstn-2strike: clear to explain why a spammy mail has got past BSB, when it thinks the addressee should have a chance to check it.

Plusnet has agreed with me and others that these mails should be scored in the usual way and disposed of in the way the score suggests -- at the moment the presence of this header is saving mails from being tagged [-SPAM-] whatever the scoring.

The work to make this change (and others) was scheduled for yesterday, and then today, and now tomorrow (having been rolled back twice because of unexpected behaviour).

Quote from: Bob on 23/01/2008, 19:05
I think you're being a little harsh here Capvermell.

I think so too, but only just....  If the work had been done yesterday as planned, he wouldn't have had a case  Wink
Logged
  • Bob
  • Plusnet Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 3800
  • View Profile WWW
« Reply #1067 on 23/01/2008, 23:49 »
Let's hope the work goes well tomorrow morning. It tested out fine on one of the live mail servers earlier today so fingers crossed!
Bob Pullen
Plusnet Comms Team
Service Status :: RSS :: Email
Free broadband - so where's the catch?
Logged
« Reply #1068 on 23/01/2008, 23:51 »
Quote from: Strat on 23/01/2008, 19:26
Sent on the 21st....arrived on the 23rd but I didn't expect to see it at all as it's been through Postini twice.

My much earlier tests with mail effectively going through postini twice indicated that it never worked.  This kinda stacked up with reports I read elsewhere not long after that where several people had apparently been having similar problems when mail was being redirected from a commercial organisation using postini to an individual who was also using postini. Most of these reports were a bit ancient mind you but there were also more recent ones as well which suggested that there was and still is some issues with trying to do this.

However, more recent tests indicate that whilst it generally speaking doesn't seem to work, on some occasions messages do actually get through although with some quite unbelievable delays. Messages appear to be generally rejected by postini with a #451 meaning that most servers would (should) retry after typ 4 hours and several more times for a day or so and possibly for almost a week. On a few occasions I have seen messages, like yours, that have eventually turned up after many hours/days but by no means all of them have.  The majority seem to fail eventually (after several days) or often just disappear with no NDA being received at any time and the message still not being delivered. I'm fairly sure that I've seen another PN customer reporting much the same behaviour but I can't remember whether it was on here or elsewhere.

All my tests used similar routing so something was far from consistent and I couldn't see anything that indicated why some worked (eventually) but others didn't. I did think maybe there was some greylisting going on but TBH it just seemed a bit hit and miss from analysing my very small sample of data. PN think this will be fixed tomorrow of course so it will be interesting to see what happens after that. Maybe there is some configuration option that PN can tweak to control postini behaviour in this respect ?

« Last Edit: 23/01/2008, 23:56 by mikeb »

WARNING: The e-mail address on my profile is not my usual address, all messages sent via this site have been redirected elsewhere for test purposes. This could result in messages not being received in a timely manner or potentially not being received at all.
Logged
« Reply #1069 on 24/01/2008, 00:05 »
Quote from: Bob on 23/01/2008, 23:49
Let's hope the work goes well tomorrow morning. It tested out fine on one of the live mail servers earlier today so fingers crossed!

Let us hope that further improves things Bob.

By the way I don't suppose you are thinking of changing your forum avatar again any time soon as it strikes me that the current one ought to deserve a somewhat limited lifetime. Wink
Logged
  • Bob
  • Plusnet Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 3800
  • View Profile WWW
« Reply #1070 on 24/01/2008, 00:07 »
lol, I was waiting for somebody to comment on that!

I think it should at least see the week out. Perhaps it's worthy of a poll in the General Chit-Chat forum Wink
Bob Pullen
Plusnet Comms Team
Service Status :: RSS :: Email
Free broadband - so where's the catch?
Logged
  • geezer
  • Posts: 667
  • BBYW Option free I wish!
  • View Profile
« Reply #1071 on 24/01/2008, 00:58 »
Bob - check your messages please.

BBYW Option 3 MaxDSL 8Mbps-||- ADSL Exchg Checker -||- Broadband Speedtest
BT Stat Checker -- 0800 1690199 = latest BB faults-- PN plans 08
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 65 66 [67] 68 69 ... 80
Home » Forum » Service Discussion » Community Support » Postini Email Security Trial
Jump to:  

Related Sites

Community Apps

Here at Plusnet we're always trying to use clever open source things to make our lives easier. Sometimes we write our own and make other people's lives easier too!

View the Plusnet Open Source applications page

About Plusnet

We sell broadband, phone, VoIP and more to homes and businesses in the UK. Winner of 9 out of 11 Categories in the 2008 USwitch survey. Winner of "Best Consumer ISP" at 2008 ISPA awards. Voted number 1 in the Broadband Choices 2008 survey.

© Plusnet plc All Rights Reserved. E&OE

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC

Add to Technorati Favourites