<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Plusnet email spam filter training in Email</title>
    <link>https://community.plus.net/t5/Email/Plusnet-email-spam-filter-training/m-p/1951957#M45356</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.plus.net/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/96057"&gt;@willcutforth&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;TBH I'm not sure of the current status of those training addresses...&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Back in 2011 this was posted&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;No, the emails are not being forwarded to Cloudmark at present and an overhaul of those support pages is due before too long. We wanted a feel for the various nuances of Cloudmark before making any significant changes though.&lt;BR /&gt;FWIW, using the spam/no spam reporting buttons on the new Webmail platform &lt;STRONG&gt;*will*&lt;/STRONG&gt; result in the mail being forwarded to Cloudmark. For more details about how that works take a look &lt;A href="http://community.plus.net/blog/2011/10/04/plusnet-look-to-the-clouds-for-email-security-solution/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;here&lt;/A&gt;.&lt;BR /&gt;Webmail uses authentication against a user's account so that Cloudmark can track the report back to the sender. Due to this they're able to ascertain the reliability of a particular customer's reports. Those submitting 'healthy' false-positive/negative reports will benefit from a closer feedback loop and their submissions will be reacted to more efficiently. Those submitting unreliable reports won't have as much of an effect on how Cloudmark detect spam. It makes sense to do things this way to avoid 'poisining' the spam detection engine. Worth mentioning that the 'training' is across the board and there isn't a separate set of heuristics for each individual customer.&lt;BR /&gt;The fact that we need to use outbound authentication is one of the problems with the manual spam training addresses. Customers don't have to use authentication and where they don't it's difficult for Cloudmark to identify who's submitted a particular report.&lt;BR /&gt;We do need to decide what to do with the manual training addresses, whether that's to do away with them entirely or develop some mechanism of relaying the messages to Cloudmark that works for all parties involved.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;but in 2019 when there were issues with the webmail spam buttons a PN Infrastructure Engineer posted&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;In the meantime you can mark or unmark as spam by forwarding the message as attachments to the addresses below&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;spam@spamtraining.plus.com - Emails which are spam but not correctly tagged&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;notspam@spamtraining.plus.com - Emails tagged as spam which are not&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 06 Jan 2024 15:07:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>MisterW</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2024-01-06T15:07:00Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Plusnet email spam filter training</title>
      <link>https://community.plus.net/t5/Email/Plusnet-email-spam-filter-training/m-p/1951936#M45354</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Are the following email addresses for spam filter training still active?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;spam@spamtraining.plus.com&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;notspam@spamtraining.plus.com&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I spoke to support today and the plusnet person had not heard of them.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;If not, what have they been replaced by?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;TIA,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;JTB&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 06 Jan 2024 10:59:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.plus.net/t5/Email/Plusnet-email-spam-filter-training/m-p/1951936#M45354</guid>
      <dc:creator>JakTheBiscuit</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-01-06T10:59:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Plusnet email spam filter training</title>
      <link>https://community.plus.net/t5/Email/Plusnet-email-spam-filter-training/m-p/1951945#M45355</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;The only ones I have heard of from front line is &lt;A href="mailto:abuse@plus.net" target="_blank"&gt;abuse@plus.net&lt;/A&gt; not heard of the other ones but wonder if the superusers etc can help me out on this one?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 06 Jan 2024 12:18:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.plus.net/t5/Email/Plusnet-email-spam-filter-training/m-p/1951945#M45355</guid>
      <dc:creator>willcutforth</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-01-06T12:18:15Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Plusnet email spam filter training</title>
      <link>https://community.plus.net/t5/Email/Plusnet-email-spam-filter-training/m-p/1951957#M45356</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.plus.net/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/96057"&gt;@willcutforth&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;TBH I'm not sure of the current status of those training addresses...&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Back in 2011 this was posted&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;No, the emails are not being forwarded to Cloudmark at present and an overhaul of those support pages is due before too long. We wanted a feel for the various nuances of Cloudmark before making any significant changes though.&lt;BR /&gt;FWIW, using the spam/no spam reporting buttons on the new Webmail platform &lt;STRONG&gt;*will*&lt;/STRONG&gt; result in the mail being forwarded to Cloudmark. For more details about how that works take a look &lt;A href="http://community.plus.net/blog/2011/10/04/plusnet-look-to-the-clouds-for-email-security-solution/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;here&lt;/A&gt;.&lt;BR /&gt;Webmail uses authentication against a user's account so that Cloudmark can track the report back to the sender. Due to this they're able to ascertain the reliability of a particular customer's reports. Those submitting 'healthy' false-positive/negative reports will benefit from a closer feedback loop and their submissions will be reacted to more efficiently. Those submitting unreliable reports won't have as much of an effect on how Cloudmark detect spam. It makes sense to do things this way to avoid 'poisining' the spam detection engine. Worth mentioning that the 'training' is across the board and there isn't a separate set of heuristics for each individual customer.&lt;BR /&gt;The fact that we need to use outbound authentication is one of the problems with the manual spam training addresses. Customers don't have to use authentication and where they don't it's difficult for Cloudmark to identify who's submitted a particular report.&lt;BR /&gt;We do need to decide what to do with the manual training addresses, whether that's to do away with them entirely or develop some mechanism of relaying the messages to Cloudmark that works for all parties involved.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;but in 2019 when there were issues with the webmail spam buttons a PN Infrastructure Engineer posted&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;In the meantime you can mark or unmark as spam by forwarding the message as attachments to the addresses below&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;spam@spamtraining.plus.com - Emails which are spam but not correctly tagged&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;notspam@spamtraining.plus.com - Emails tagged as spam which are not&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 06 Jan 2024 15:07:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.plus.net/t5/Email/Plusnet-email-spam-filter-training/m-p/1951957#M45356</guid>
      <dc:creator>MisterW</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-01-06T15:07:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

