Another 552 Spam Message problem

[#1]

It rather sounds as though the problem (at least in part) arises from the mass mailing technology platform SHE has chosen to use.

If a sender is receiving spam detection rejections, this really is an issue for the sender to own ... with whatever help the receiver can offer ... not the other way around; receiver fixing with limited help from the sender.

The sender is the party in control of the content, not the receiver.

[#2]

---

@MisterW wrote:

whilst I can see why it would appear like that to her, its going to be a bigger problem sooner or later. Unless she takes some action to fix it, she's likely to start getting spam rejections from more and more of her correspondents...

Well I happen to know (personally) the email addresses of quite a lot of her correspondents. Where they don't have a private domain, I've taken a sample of their email providers:-

aol.com
btconnect.com
btinternet.com
cooptel.net
easynet.co.uk
fastmail.com
fastmail.co.uk
fastmail.fm
gmail.com
gmx.de
googlemail.com
hotmail.com
hotmail.co.uk
icloud.com
live.com
mac.com
me.com
msn.com
outlook.com
phonecoop.coop
protonmail.com
talktalk.net
tiscali.co.uk
yahoo.com
yahoo.co.uk
zen.co.uk

Note no PlusNet. Yet I'm the only one from whom she gets a rejection. There's no way I can persuade a non-technical person that there's trouble ahead of her with this lack of evidence.

---

[#3]

There's no way I can persuade a non-technical person that there's trouble ahead of her with this lack of evidence.

@breslaw  I can appreciate that given your list! It does look like Cloudmark is being a bit picky/generating a false positive.

From your earlier posts, you suggested the problem was intermittent, sounds like Cloudmark is temporarily 'flagging' the tracking domain as suspect due to the volume of mail sent from/via/linked to it.

In order to fix it permanently from PlusNet's end, they need to be able to see what signature is triggering Cloudmark and, as has been said before, they cant do that without the original email, catch 22!.

[#4]

---

@MisterW wrote:

In order to fix it permanently from PlusNet's end, they need to be able to see what signature is triggering Cloudmark and, as has been said before, they cant do that without the original email, catch 22!.

---

Okay. So in my understanding is this what I'm being asked to do?

1. Create, say, a gmail address for myself.
2. Ask my correspondent to add that address to her list.
3. Ask my correspondent to let me know if/when she gets another rejection from Plusnet.
4. Wait a while as messages get sent.
5. When my correspondent lets me know of a rejection, find the message in my gmail inbox.
6. Do I then save and upload the message to a ticket? Or forward it to someone in Plusnet?

[#5]

I think 1 to 5 , yes.

6 I'm not sure which is the best way , need a PN staffer to advise

[#6]

Does not the rejection notification (in its headers) contain the rejection signature?

[#7]

---

@Townman wrote:

Does not the rejection notification (in its headers) contain the rejection signature?

---

What's the rejection signature header field called?