plus.net email filter
A couple of things that are not quite clear:
Those are not mutually exclusive, someone has to write spam
So, does that imply bulk mailings from your business account?
Quote from: djh Now I'm not sending spam, I'm sending messages I've written.
Those are not mutually exclusive, someone has to write spam
Quote from: djh commercially relevant mail.
So, does that imply bulk mailings from your business account?
Quote from: PeeGee A couple of things that are not quite clear:
Quote from: djh Now I'm not sending spam, I'm sending messages I've written.
Those are not mutually exclusive, someone has to write spam
Quote from: djh commercially relevant mail.
So, does that imply bulk mailings from your business account?
Thanks for thinking about the problem but if you can't think of anything constructive to say, <removed> somewhere else please.
jim:red Removed abbreviation is against this Forum Rule mod:end
Quote from: djh
Quote from: Bob
Quote Please note that all the other email systems I use do behave in that way. They send me an email telling me there is a problem. It's only your service that behaves this way, in my experience.
Now I'm even more confused. The message will be refused and an 5xx SMTP response presented. There's nothing unusual about this and it's compliant with RFC's. I was under the impression all decent mail clients would return this SMTP rejection at the point of sending?
Then you classify Evolution as indecent, because it doesn't, I'm afraid.
In which case I reserve my right to remain confused because Evolution does return an error when I try. Perhaps your problem isn't being caused by what I think it is?
Quote from: djh
Quote As above, we don't silently discard anything. Our server returns an explicit 5xx response. I'm sure you can understand that it's simply not feasible to have suspect messages checked by a human being
As far as I'm concerned, what you're doing is a very close equivalent to the silent calls that Talk-Talk just got fined for. You're causing me grief because you're not prepared to spend money to improve your systems.
It's a million miles apart from the Talk Talk situation and we're not going to get fined for doing something that is RFC-compliant (although based on the above, perhaps it isn't 5xx SMTP rejections that are causing you grief).
Quote from: djh And yes, given the amount of hassle this causes me and I in turn cause for you, I'd think it would be entirely feasible to have a human check any occurence of a suspect message from my account. Figure out why you're getting false positives and change your system so you don't.
If raising a support ticket is too much hassle then there may be another way (it depends on whether or not it is these 5xx rejections that are causing your problem). What happens if you try sending/forwarding one of these problematic emails using our Webmail platform? It should return the rejection message containing the spam fingerprint string. If it does then the message will end up in the Drafts folder. This can then be moved to the Spam folder where you can highlight it and click the 'This message is not spam' button. That sends the message to Cloudmark as a false positive. Whilst the results won't be immediate, with a few messages this will probably reset the trigger. A human trawling our server logs for the 5xx rejections would be futile because we can't see the content of the email at this stage (because it was never accepted) and therefore would have no idea whether it was genuine or not.
Whilst it sounds like you'd rather move ISP, it's easy enough to get access to a third party SMTP service for ~£1/mnth. There's always the possibility that you'd encounter problems there though too if your messages fall foul of our spam filters so frequently.
Quote from: djh
Quote We've tried a multitude of solutions over the years and compared to others Cloudmark does a good job. As I've mentioned above though, no solution is perfect. What I struggle to understand is exactly why this seems to cause you so many problems? The majority of people would never even encounter the issue, let alone encounter it repeatedly. Perhaps the activity of one of the domains you send to causes it to repeatedly end up on Cloudmarks naughty-boy lists?
I have no idea about the recipient's email systems, but that should be a problem for them to deal with, not me. As far as I am concerned, they are simply a company I want to buy something from.
Let's assume the worst case - that the company I'm trying to send to has completely incompetent admins and their servers are spewing out huge amounts of spam. The fundamental point is that sending mail to an address that is a source of spam, even when that email includes URLs in that domain (because it is a reply to one of their mails) is NOT spam. Whatever fingerprint you are using needs to include some actual payload, not just URLs. And it needs to care about the direction of the email. Mail that matches a spam signature coming FROM that spam source is spam; mail that matches the spam signature of the source that is sent TO the source is NOT spam.
A lot of spammers use compromised email accounts to send messages. We know this because we see it all the time where customers respond to phishing emails that allow a spammer into our webmail systems to sent unsolicited email. All of this would be missed if the spam filtering was not applied to outbound traffic.
We've invested a lot of time and money into our mail platform over the years and the current solution is not going to undergo any significant change any time soon. Perhaps you can elaborate on your problem though because I no longer think we're talking about the same thing? You experience with Evolution certainly doesn't mirror mine.
I'm wondering now what /volume/ of messages you send? It could be that you're hitting the rate limits that are applied (and can be adjusted by us in certain scenarios). When that happens the server would return a temporary 4xx error that Evolution might not handle as gracefully.