Re: Google is amazing

[juan]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 12:34:18 -0700
Sean Lynch  wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 1:46 PM, juan  wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 17:47:42 +
> > Sean Lynch  wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I used to have a filter that prevented Gmail from marking cpunks
> > > mail as spam, but I have intentionally avoided fixing that since
> > > the list address changed in hopes of training it not to suck so
> > > bad. So far I don't seem to have had much luck.
> >
> >
> > So apparently the system ignores the fact that messages come
> > from a mailing list, and treats them as if they came
> > directly from the original sender's address. And then wrongly marks
> > some as spam. So it's doing it wrongly, twice.
> >
> 
> I'm not sure how manually blocking based on mailing list headers
> makes any sense. 

No, blocking doesn't make sense. What makes sense is
whitelisting =P - I mean, if the list is already filtered,
what's the point of gmail filtering it again?


> And there are plenty of mailing lists that get lots
> of spam. This used to be how cpunks worked when it was distributed,

And in that case gmail's default behaviour makes sense. But for
what it's worth most if not all lists I've been subscribed to
have been filtered at the list's server.
 

> as has been discussed here recently. The end user was expected to run
> a spam filter against the list, subscribe to a filtered mirror, or
> just put up with it.

Fair enough.

> 
> 
> > Adding a rule to stop it filtering messages with trait
> > 'comes-from-cypher-whatever' works, but it seems to be
> > slightly misaligned with the modern philosophy of "automatic system
> > built for retards, I mean, for Important People Too Busy To
> > Learn Anything".
> >
> 
> Well, the "retards" probably aren't going to care much about a few
> mailing list messages being sent to their spam folder erroneously.


Haha! You have a point...


> I
> can't say I've actually cared about any of the messages that got sent
> to spam, I'm just pedantic about such things. Today, though, the only
> "false positive" was someone I would have blocked anyway. So is it
> really a false positive?

Re: Google is amazing

[Sean Lynch]

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 1:46 PM, juan  wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 17:47:42 +
> Sean Lynch  wrote:
>
>
> > I used to have a filter that prevented Gmail from marking cpunks mail
> > as spam, but I have intentionally avoided fixing that since the list
> > address changed in hopes of training it not to suck so bad. So far I
> > don't seem to have had much luck.
>
>
> So apparently the system ignores the fact that messages come
> from a mailing list, and treats them as if they came directly
> from the original sender's address. And then wrongly marks some
> as spam. So it's doing it wrongly, twice.
>

I'm not sure how manually blocking based on mailing list headers makes any
sense. And there are plenty of mailing lists that get lots of spam. This
used to be how cpunks worked when it was distributed, as has been discussed
here recently. The end user was expected to run a spam filter against the
list, subscribe to a filtered mirror, or just put up with it.


> Adding a rule to stop it filtering messages with trait
> 'comes-from-cypher-whatever' works, but it seems to be slightly
> misaligned with the modern philosophy of "automatic system
> built for retards, I mean, for Important People Too Busy To
> Learn Anything".
>

Well, the "retards" probably aren't going to care much about a few mailing
list messages being sent to their spam folder erroneously. I can't say I've
actually cared about any of the messages that got sent to spam, I'm just
pedantic about such things. Today, though, the only "false positive" was
someone I would have blocked anyway. So is it really a false positive?

Re: Google is amazing

[juan]

On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 17:47:42 +
Sean Lynch  wrote:


> I used to have a filter that prevented Gmail from marking cpunks mail
> as spam, but I have intentionally avoided fixing that since the list
> address changed in hopes of training it not to suck so bad. So far I
> don't seem to have had much luck.


So apparently the system ignores the fact that messages come
from a mailing list, and treats them as if they came directly
from the original sender's address. And then wrongly marks some
as spam. So it's doing it wrongly, twice.

Adding a rule to stop it filtering messages with trait
'comes-from-cypher-whatever' works, but it seems to be slightly
misaligned with the modern philosophy of "automatic system
built for retards, I mean, for Important People Too Busy To
Learn Anything".


> 
> One thing I did notice is that by default when you block a sender on
> Gmail it sends their messages to the spam folder instead of deleting
> them, which could mean its training the spam filter on them as well.
> If a lot of people do that, it could cause the spam filter to think
> other cpunks messages are also spam instead of just, say, Cypher
> Piggie's.
> 
> The solution for me is going to be to stop using Gmail once I find
> the time to set up my scandalous basement server. The easier solution
> is just to set up a filter with "never mark as spam" as someone else
> suggested whom I would credit by name were I not typing this on my
> phone in the bathroom.
> 
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 20:13 Razer  wrote:
>

Re: Google is amazing

[Razer]

On 09/13/2016 10:47 AM, Sean Lynch wrote:
> Having used both Gmail and SpamAssassin for filtering mail to this
> address, which I've had since 1996, I've found SpamAssassin to be vastly
> superior in terms of false positives. Gmail doesn't seem to be that much
> better in terms of false negatives even. Pretty disappointing.
> 
> I used to have a filter that prevented Gmail from marking cpunks mail as
> spam, but I have intentionally avoided fixing that since the list
> address changed in hopes of training it not to suck so bad. So far I
> don't seem to have had much luck.
> 
> One thing I did notice is that by default when you block a sender on
> Gmail it sends their messages to the spam folder instead of deleting
> them, which could mean its training the spam filter on them as well. If
> a lot of people do that, it could cause the spam filter to think other
> cpunks messages are also spam instead of just, say, Cypher Piggie's.


Or you could set the filter to mark all from "Cypher Piggie" as spam
instead. At least I think this is possible. Currently all I use Gmail
for is newsletters.

Rr

> 
> The solution for me is going to be to stop using Gmail once I find the
> time to set up my scandalous basement server. The easier solution is
> just to set up a filter with "never mark as spam" as someone else
> suggested whom I would credit by name were I not typing this on my phone
> in the bathroom.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 20:13 Razer  > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 09/12/2016 08:00 PM, juan wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 19:40:00 -0700
> > Razer > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 09/12/2016 01:36 PM, juan wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It is marking something like 50% of the list's posts as
> >>> spam and so forcing me to log into their shitty web interface. It is
> >>> really amazing that the masters of the universe can't get a
> >>> fucking spam filter working.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Whah! Whah!
> >>
> >> Make a filter so that anything from the list never gets marked as
> >> junk.
> >
> >
> >   Yeah. I think that 'feature' didn't exist a while back, but Zen
> >   just told me about it.
> >
> >
> >> Then google will know the list mail is VERY important to you.
> >
> >   ^-^
> >
> >
> >   Here's another way in which google is amazing. If I try to log
> >   with JS disabled, their shitty 'security' system will be
> >   triggered. They can't even put a note explaining that they
> >   want you to turn JS on.
> >
> >
> 
> You can still use the old html type page ("If you have a slow
> connection") I don't think it requires Jscript to function correctly at
> the client but I'm sure the page is loaded with it anyway so the server
> can note which ads your mouse.hover-s over etc.
> 

Re: Google is amazing

[Sean Lynch]

Having used both Gmail and SpamAssassin for filtering mail to this address,
which I've had since 1996, I've found SpamAssassin to be vastly superior in
terms of false positives. Gmail doesn't seem to be that much better in
terms of false negatives even. Pretty disappointing.

I used to have a filter that prevented Gmail from marking cpunks mail as
spam, but I have intentionally avoided fixing that since the list address
changed in hopes of training it not to suck so bad. So far I don't seem to
have had much luck.

One thing I did notice is that by default when you block a sender on Gmail
it sends their messages to the spam folder instead of deleting them, which
could mean its training the spam filter on them as well. If a lot of people
do that, it could cause the spam filter to think other cpunks messages are
also spam instead of just, say, Cypher Piggie's.

The solution for me is going to be to stop using Gmail once I find the time
to set up my scandalous basement server. The easier solution is just to set
up a filter with "never mark as spam" as someone else suggested whom I
would credit by name were I not typing this on my phone in the bathroom.

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 20:13 Razer  wrote:

>
>
> On 09/12/2016 08:00 PM, juan wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 19:40:00 -0700
> > Razer  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 09/12/2016 01:36 PM, juan wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It is marking something like 50% of the list's posts as
> >>> spam and so forcing me to log into their shitty web interface. It is
> >>> really amazing that the masters of the universe can't get a
> >>> fucking spam filter working.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Whah! Whah!
> >>
> >> Make a filter so that anything from the list never gets marked as
> >> junk.
> >
> >
> >   Yeah. I think that 'feature' didn't exist a while back, but Zen
> >   just told me about it.
> >
> >
> >> Then google will know the list mail is VERY important to you.
> >
> >   ^-^
> >
> >
> >   Here's another way in which google is amazing. If I try to log
> >   with JS disabled, their shitty 'security' system will be
> >   triggered. They can't even put a note explaining that they
> >   want you to turn JS on.
> >
> >
>
> You can still use the old html type page ("If you have a slow
> connection") I don't think it requires Jscript to function correctly at
> the client but I'm sure the page is loaded with it anyway so the server
> can note which ads your mouse.hover-s over etc.
>

Re: Google is amazing

[juan]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 19:40:00 -0700
Razer  wrote:

> 
> 
> On 09/12/2016 01:36 PM, juan wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > It is marking something like 50% of the list's posts as
> > spam and so forcing me to log into their shitty web interface. It is
> > really amazing that the masters of the universe can't get a
> > fucking spam filter working. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> Whah! Whah!
> 
> Make a filter so that anything from the list never gets marked as
> junk.


Yeah. I think that 'feature' didn't exist a while back, but Zen
just told me about it. 


> Then google will know the list mail is VERY important to you.

^-^ 


Here's another way in which google is amazing. If I try to log
with JS disabled, their shitty 'security' system will be
triggered. They can't even put a note explaining that they
want you to turn JS on.
 


> 
> Rr

Re: Google is amazing

[Razer]

On 09/12/2016 01:36 PM, juan wrote:
> 
> 
>   It is marking something like 50% of the list's posts as spam and
>   so forcing me to log into their shitty web interface. It is
>   really amazing that the masters of the universe can't get a
>   fucking spam filter working. 
> 
>   
> 


Whah! Whah!

Make a filter so that anything from the list never gets marked as junk.

Then google will know the list mail is VERY important to you.

Rr