Plusnet
Monday 22nd March 2010Login | Register | Help
Home » Forum » Products and Services Discussion » Community Support » Postini Feedback / Manage My Mail Improvements
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 43

Postini Feedback / Manage My Mail Improvements

« Reply #464 on 14/05/2008, 14:27 »
Quote from: Bob on 14/05/2008, 14:23
I might be wrong however I'm pretty sure that <> is a valid return path as far as RFC's are concerned.

What is an RFC?  I see rfc822 in headers sometimes. Is that what you mean?

I still can't find any emails I get where the return path is blank and it is a non spam email.  Also what about Viagra in the imagery on these mails and the website it points at selling Viagra!
Logged
« Reply #465 on 14/05/2008, 14:32 »
Quote from: Capvermell on 14/05/2008, 14:27
What is an RFC?

Linky!
Bob Pullen
Plusnet Support Team
Service Status :: RSS :: Email
twitter / plusnet
Logged
« Reply #466 on 14/05/2008, 14:36 »
The internet is built on RFCs - it stands for "Request For Comments" and defines practically every public access protocol used on the internet.

RFC822 defines the set of values that a text (email) message should (or may) contain when being transmitted over the internet.

Quote from: RFC822
    4.3.1.  RETURN-PATH

        This field  is  added  by  the  final  transport  system  that
        delivers  the message to its recipient.  The field is intended
        to contain definitive information about the address and  route
        back to the message's originator.

        Note:  The "Reply-To" field is added  by  the  originator  and
               serves  to  direct  replies,  whereas the "Return-Path"
               field is used to identify a path back to  the  origina-
               tor.

        While the syntax  indicates  that  a  route  specification  is
        optional,  every attempt should be made to provide that infor-
        mation in this field.

So, according to the RFC, this header should be added by the final transport system (ie Plusnet) and should contain (where possible) the return path.  It is not a required header and if the header is present, it is not required to have a value but every effort should be made.

B.
Barry Zubel : plusnet Community Site Forum Moderator
I'm a customer, not an employee
100x Core i7-980x, 12GB DDR3, ATI FirePro v8750 (realtime stats)
Logged
« Reply #467 on 14/05/2008, 14:41 »
Quote from: Barry Zubel on 14/05/2008, 14:36
So, according to the RFC, this header should be added by the final transport system (ie Plusnet) and should contain (where possible) the return path.  It is not a required header and if the header is present, it is not required to have a value but every effort should be made.

So although it is not a required field in reality where it is blank it is likely to be spam and most of us would want such emails tagged as spam and moved to Postini quarantine or the Plusnet IMAP spam folder.

At the moment there is no facility to even manually add Return Path blank to the list of criteria which users can control that cause an email sent to them to be classed as spam (as with the blocked sender list).  This is very frustrating as this spam could clearly be blocked this way for most of us that see such a blank return-path as a sign of a spammer but we cannot do this as Plusnet does not provide the facility in its spam account management functions. Cry
Logged
« Reply #468 on 14/05/2008, 14:54 »
AFAIK, (even valid) failed delivery notifications rarely specify a return path. Here's partial headers from a valid failed delivery notification received to a non-PlusNet hosted account I have:

Code:
Received: from m1.mxes.net ([unix socket])
by ms1.mxes.net (Cyrus v2.3.7) with LMTPA;
Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:30:25 -0500
X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.3
Return-Path: <>
Received: from 216.86.168.186
by m1.mxes.net (bayesd) with LMTP id 1198200625-52767-80
Bob Pullen
Plusnet Support Team
Service Status :: RSS :: Email
twitter / plusnet
Logged
« Reply #469 on 14/05/2008, 14:58 »
Quote from: Bob on 14/05/2008, 14:54
AFAIK, (even valid) failed delivery notifications rarely specify a return path. Here's partial headers from a valid failed delivery notification received to a non-PlusNet hosted account I have:

OK fair enough then but surely Postini shoulds still be trapping these emails as spam due to the link in them to a website dedicated to selling Viagra type products.

And for anyone who actually wants to buy Viagra online I would politely suggest they set up a special email account with all spam filtering options turned off for that purpose.

« Last Edit: 14/05/2008, 19:29 by Capvermell »

Logged
« Reply #470 on 14/05/2008, 19:23 »
Deleted - Duplicate Post
Logged
« Reply #471 on 15/05/2008, 15:58 »
Ok guys,

We've a few changes that we're wanting to roll-out this afternoon if possible. Brief overview as follows:

  • A fix for a problem where the x-pn-pstn: header was missing, causing emails not to be dealt with as spam. There's discussion about this in the thread here where the issue was first identified.
  • A fix for an issue that very occasionally caused whitelisted messages to be treated as if they were spam (which shouldn't happen).
  • Refinement of the spam scoring heuristics that we use. This will hopefully improve the accuracy of the spam filter for everybody apart from those using the Postini Quarantine (we've no direct control over this). The specifics are quite complicated, however for those of you with a detailed understanding as to how things work now, I've attached a flow diagram for your reference. Basically we will be using the x-pn-pstn-settings: headers that Postini provide to alter the thresholds that determine whether or not email is considered to be Spam 1, Spam 2, Spam 3, Spam 4 or Spam 5. This will be done on a per message basis. We will also be putting more weight behind the neptune*qtine: headers so that email containing these is more likely to be considered spam.

The latter item is probably the one that will be of most benefit to customers.

I'll post a Service Status as soon as it's fully confirmed that this work will be taking place.

* spam_scoring.png (62.69 KB, 706x1087 - viewed 262 times.)
Bob Pullen
Plusnet Support Team
Service Status :: RSS :: Email
twitter / plusnet
Logged
  • Oldjim
  • Forum Moderator
  • Posts: 10011
  • View Profile
« Reply #472 on 15/05/2008, 16:04 »
Ignore - Firefox was restricting the size  Embarrassed
Deducting 7 from the score will certainly fix all the ones I have received

« Last Edit: 15/05/2008, 16:07 by Oldjim »

Jurassic Coast
Dorset Area Ramblers
Jim
Logged
« Reply #473 on 15/05/2008, 16:17 »
All sounds good but these things have a nasty habit of not working out as Plusnet expects.

So tin hats at the ready everybody................... Wink
Logged
  • spraxyt
  • Usergroup Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2202
  • View Profile
« Reply #474 on 16/05/2008, 00:56 »
Is anyone aware of a reason for not putting the tin hat back in its box?
Logged
« Reply #475 on 16/05/2008, 12:59 »
A bit early to say yet.

@Bob, with reference the Flow Chart, who is Sam?? Huh? Roll Eyes Cheesy
Logged
« Reply #476 on 16/05/2008, 15:17 »
Quote from: Anotherone on 16/05/2008, 12:59
@Bob, with reference the Flow Chart, who is Sam?? Huh? Roll Eyes Cheesy

 Embarrassed
Bob Pullen
Plusnet Support Team
Service Status :: RSS :: Email
twitter / plusnet
Logged
  • Be3G
  • Forum Moderator
  • Posts: 4798
  • View Profile
« Reply #477 on 16/05/2008, 15:53 »
Maybe Sam is someone whose primary job at PlusNet is to sit there day and night checking every customer's e-mail by following the given flow chart. It'd certainly explain why everyone's e-mails get delayed whenever PlusNet's mail servers receive more spam than usual.
Thomas Kuglin - known as kuglin on the old vISP forums.
Plusnet forum moderator of old, and operator of usertools IRC.

My web presences: twitter | flickr | last.fm
Logged
« Reply #478 on 17/05/2008, 00:18 »
Pleased to see the new treatment of neptune headers working
Quote
X-pstn-neptune: 240/233/0.97/78
X-pstn-levels:     (S: 1.25503/99.90000 CV:99.0000 R:95.9108 P:95.9108 M:97.0282 C:98.6951 )
X-pstn-settings: 1 (0.1500:0.1500) cv gt3 gt2 gt1 r p m c
X-pstn-addresses: from <cerina-trmilyto@GHS.ES> [59/2]
X-pstn-neptune-cave-rslt: qtine
X-pn-pstn: Spam 1
X-PN-Virus-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v4.00)
X-PN-Spam-Filtered: by PlusNet MXCore (v4.00)
Subject: [-SPAM-] Thrill her more every night
(I still think it would be easier/better to simply follow Postini in tagging all rslt: qtine emails as spam :-)
Logged
  • spraxyt
  • Usergroup Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2202
  • View Profile
« Reply #479 on 17/05/2008, 02:34 »
Quote from: ChrisL on 17/05/2008, 00:18
(I still think it would be easier/better to simply follow Postini in tagging all rslt: qtine emails as spam :-)

I share that view and it is being considered. Small steps at a time being taken. Does anyone have examples where neptune*qtine is present, but the spam score (S in the levels header) exceeds 7? And in this case is the message spam or genuine? Posting headers (the X-pstn, X-pn and Subject as ChrisL did) would be appreciated.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 43
Home » Forum » Products and Services Discussion » Community Support » Postini Feedback / Manage My Mail Improvements
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