Re: Return Path (TM) whitelists
Am 10.07.2015 um 00:07 schrieb Dianne Skoll d...@roaringpenguin.com: On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 07:58:39 +1000 Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net wrote: +1 I'll throw my +1 in on this also. Almost by definition, the kinds of organizations who buy into these certifications to get their mail delivered are unlikely to be the kinds of organizations I want to hear from. For the record, this is the reason why dnswl.org http://dnswl.org/ does not charge for listings (and we don’t call it certification): it always leads to conflicts of interest. — Matthias, for the dnswl.org http://dnswl.org/ project smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Return Path (TM) whitelists
On 7/9/2015 6:07 PM, Dianne Skoll wrote: On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 07:58:39 +1000 Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net wrote: +1 I'll throw my +1 in on this also. Almost by definition, the kinds of organizations who buy into these certifications to get their mail delivered are unlikely to be the kinds of organizations I want to hear from. Just as SPF pass is a mild spam indicator nowadays, so is a pass on these kinds of certifications. Regards, Dianne. I think your information on SPF is a bit out of date (though indeed when the spec was new, you could easily score it quite heavily). http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20150709-r1690028-nrule=SPF_PASSsrcpath=g=Change http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/?daterev=20150709-r1690028-nrule=SPF_HELO_PASSsrcpath=g=Change It's not good enough to give a negative score all by itself, since it's still very easy to make useless SPF records, but it's not what it used to be.
Re: Return Path (TM) whitelists
On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 18:07:07 -0400 Dianne Skoll wrote: On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 07:58:39 +1000 Noel Butler noel.but...@ausics.net wrote: +1 I'll throw my +1 in on this also. Almost by definition, the kinds of organizations who buy into these certifications to get their mail delivered are unlikely to be the kinds of organizations I want to hear from. For me it's mostly reputable organizations including the BBC, eBay, my ISP, my local supermarket and various companies I've bought things from. I don't get any spam at all in the return-path lists. Just as SPF pass is a mild spam indicator nowadays, so is a pass on these kinds of certifications. I don't doubt that there's some abuse, but I also find it hard to believe that the accuracy of the return-path rules isn't dominated by user behaviour. I would suggest that people evaluate them themselves on a rational basis. On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:06:58 +0200 Matthias Leisi wrote: For the record, this is the reason why dnswl.org http://dnswl.org/ does not charge for listings (and we don?t call it certification): it always leads to conflicts of interest. The chief difference that makes is that people cut DNSWL a lot more slack when it fails, and treat it less emotionally. Whilst I don't get any spam in RP, I do get spam in DNSWL. The big difference is that DNSWL has more hackable user accounts which in turn means that DNSWL is more likely to let through serious fraud and phishing spams when it does fail.
non-English sender and body
I get a lot of spam from Chinese senders and Chinese subjects but only an image for the body. I want to mark as spam any non-English sender names and subjects. I tried TextCat but either I did it wrong or it only looks at the Body.
Re: Return Path (TM) whitelists
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 17:34:06 +0200 Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: it's enough *once time* overlook the small letters besides soem checkbox saying we give your data to our partners and so agree without intention while it's hard to impossible to realize the connection when wekks or months later a mail form a 3rd party comes Yes, that's true. However, if Return-Path is certifying organizations that use these sorts of tricks to get people to agree without intention, then Return-Path is not doing its job ethically. Return-Path should have a policy of refusing to certify senders unless they have a default opted-out policy with a requirement for verified opt-in. Regards, Dianne. pgplABWdy9Yf2.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Return Path (TM) whitelists
Am 10.07.2015 um 17:15 schrieb Ian Zimmerman: On 2015-07-10 16:36 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: most users enable checkboxes which are needed to get random forms submitted, even if they say i agree to get mails from here and there and are missing the context when that mails are coming later You don't know me, so you can hardly claim a basis to lump me with most users. I repeat (for the last time, I promise): I didn't subscribe to any Belgian/Dutch list. Not by enabling a checkbox, not otherwise you asked Can you specify user behaviour in more detail? and if you don't want answers don't ask questions it's enough *once time* overlook the small letters besides soem checkbox saying we give your data to our partners and so agree without intention while it's hard to impossible to realize the connection when wekks or months later a mail form a 3rd party comes signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Return Path (TM) whitelists
On 2015-07-10 13:54 +0100, RW wrote: I don't get any spam at all in the return-path lists. ... I don't doubt that there's some abuse, but I also find it hard to believe that the accuracy of the return-path rules isn't dominated by user behaviour. Can you specify user behaviour in more detail? Are you saying it is something I (and the other posters with viewpoint similar to mine) did, or didn't do, that causes us to receive RP certified UCE? -- Please *no* private copies of mailing list or newsgroup messages. Rule 420: All persons more than eight miles high to leave the court.
Re: Return Path (TM) whitelists
Am 10.07.2015 um 16:34 schrieb Ian Zimmerman: On 2015-07-10 13:54 +0100, RW wrote: I don't get any spam at all in the return-path lists. ... I don't doubt that there's some abuse, but I also find it hard to believe that the accuracy of the return-path rules isn't dominated by user behaviour. Can you specify user behaviour in more detail? Are you saying it is something I (and the other posters with viewpoint similar to mine) did, or didn't do, that causes us to receive RP certified UCE? it's simple: most users enable checkboxes which are needed to get random forms submitted, even if they say i agree to get mails from here and there and are missing the context when that mails are coming later signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Return Path (TM) whitelists
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:09:27 -0400 Rob McEwen wrote: And some on this thread are not realizing that DNSWL has various LEVELS in its ratings of senders I don't see anything in this thread to suggest that. most of the time that a virus-sent spam is sent from an IP in DNSWL, it is from an IP that is marked by DNSWL as a mixed source. All of DNSWL's levels are mixed, they've never claimed otherwise.
Re: Return Path (TM) whitelists
Also, often, the Return Path certified sender is an ESP who sends for a variety of customers. There is not always an absolute guarantee that every one of that ESP's customer is ethical and truthful. A good ESP will quickly fire such any such bad apple customer... but some do a much better job than others. Some spend endless amounts of time telling blacklists, we're Return Path certified... and we had this bad customer... but we're working with that customer to purge their lists of complainers and bad addresses. (iow, help them listwash, keeping them on as customers) ESPs are economically incentivized to keep marginal customers (or pretenders), and Return Path is economically incentivized to keep those grayhat-ESPs. Yes, at the extremes, customers will be fired in both situations. But there is a lot of gray before those extremes trigger a firing. And there are many situations where those limits are pushed. Having said that, those ESPs who choose to push those limits hurt themselves in the long run as their domains/IPs start getting dragged further and further down in various reputation and anti-spam filtering systems. But some of these are managed by 20-something-year old punk kids who haven't thought that far ahead. I'm sure Return Path stops lots of this stuff but certainly, a significant amount of unsolicited messages can slip through the cracks. Meanwhile, in contrast, DNSWL is NOT economically incentivized to go easy on gray senders. And some on this thread are not realizing that DNSWL has various LEVELS in its ratings of senders... where senders of BOTH legit mail and spam are marked accordingly. That way, you know to not outright block messages from certain mixed ham/spam sender's IPs... but you shouldn't treat them as fully whitelisted either. That is a big difference... therefore, most of the time that a virus-sent spam is sent from an IP in DNSWL, it is from an IP that is marked by DNSWL as a mixed source. -- Rob McEwen http://www.invaluement.com/ +1 478-475-9032
Re: Return Path (TM) whitelists
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:06:58 +0200 Matthias Leisi matth...@leisi.net wrote: For the record, this is the reason why dnswl.org http://dnswl.org/ does not charge for listings (and we don’t call it certification): it always leads to conflicts of interest. Yes, I trust dnswl.org. What we need is a meta-reputation system that rates the reputation of organizations that rate reputation. :) Regards, Dianne.
Re: Return Path (TM) whitelists
On 2015-07-10 16:36 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: most users enable checkboxes which are needed to get random forms submitted, even if they say i agree to get mails from here and there and are missing the context when that mails are coming later You don't know me, so you can hardly claim a basis to lump me with most users. I repeat (for the last time, I promise): I didn't subscribe to any Belgian/Dutch list. Not by enabling a checkbox, not otherwise. -- Please *no* private copies of mailing list or newsgroup messages. Rule 420: All persons more than eight miles high to leave the court.
