On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 10:41:16 -0400 (EDT)
"D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk" <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
> | From: ac via talk <talk@gtalug.org>
> | I was wondering whether I am the only one noticing that Google and
> | Microsoft has become increasingly aggressive and underhanded in
> their | email operations?
> No, I haven't.  But then there is no reason why I would.  I run my
> own mail server but only for my family.
> Can you be more explicit about what I would notice and what they are
> doing that is wrong?  Note: I'm not challenging the correctness of
> what you are claiming, I'm just trying to understand it.  Remember I,
> and probably most other list, members don't have your level of
> knowledge about this.

in google you would notice increased complexity of headers, as well as
pvt ipv6 forwards and other leads, here is an actual example, from an
actual recent Google abusive email:

 X-BeenThere: aaans.moleskin25@bigprofts.press
Received: by 2002:a0c:b599:: with SMTP id g25-v6ls1095627qve.2.gmail;
Tue, 12 Jun 2018 18:41:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:d78d:: with SMTP id
z13-v6mr27784qvi.0.1528854065786; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 18:41:05 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 18:41:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: "aaans.moleskin25reign" <aaans.moleskin25@bigprofts.press>
To: "aaans.moleskin25reign" <aaans.moleskin25@bigprofts.press>
Message-Id: <b7a0e727-58f6-48d6-bb76-9abafa39f097@bigprofts.press>
Subject: Are You Still Struggling To Make Consistent Money Online ?

From the same Google abuse and prior to this header extract, Google has
a "check in group" and "relay group" which imnsho is used by Google
black ops which I suspect may be a bofh group or culture from within
the corp somewhere.

As this specific example is actually a crime (and criminal activity)

and exactly the same group, tag, check-in, ipv4 and ipv6 has been
reported to ab...@google.com over 64 times in the past 30 days and

there has been no action, response or anything at all (reported through
SpamCop as well as directly from numerous places

this clearly indicates that google is an evil organisation hell bent
on world domination :) - and that they are non responsive to abuse
complaints for the specific reason of destroying infrastructure,
reducing email quality of other vendors and bypassing spam filters and
competing anti spam technology.

even in an even handed approach and if I try hard (which is difficult)
to be "pro google" at the very least they are a money hungry
multinational, hell bent on destroying all competition.  

> I understand that Google and Microsoft are very very dominant in
> email. This is so very different from when I started -- every little
> group ran their own server.
> I guess that the main driver is SPAM.  The above-board reason is that
> SPAM detection is a balance between hard and imperfect.  I'm willing
> to live with imperfect but many folks are not.
> My amateur act spam handling: SPAM Assassin (uncustomized) + some
> custom procmail rules + each user gets do delete what comes through.
> I understand the G&M do much better SPAM detection.  To the extent
> that they've forced all mailing lists (including this one) to change
> in an unpleasant way.  Or maybe that was just Yahoo.
> I think that you are saying that G&M are now pushing the burden onto
> other providers, but I don't understand how.
> Is it a matter of forwarding or of originating?

both.. both Google & Microsoft classify incoming relay from 'competitors' as 
spam for their own users sometimes at exactly the correct 'timing' when the 
competitor is also under 'attack' from what seems to be gov/org crime from 
say russia, china, korea, etc.

the patterns for this action repeats to frequently for it to be chance
(if you flip a coin enough times heads and tails eventually comes
closer to balance - heads & tails cannot be 80% apart...- as this means
that either the coin is weighted etc so that heads or tails has a
higher statistical probability, etc.)

> I thought that very little forwarding (except internally) happens
> these days.  I kind of think you only need to judge the last hop.
yeah, this is what I am saying :)

thank you for clarifying that!

the last hop - this is the actual server passing you the criminal
activity or the abuse, spam, etc.

Google is making it impossible to block or weight (spamassassin +3 etc)
the "last hop" as too high percentage is spam and too high percentage
is ham. this is a design change by Google and is non competitive as
they are already too huge and are now a bully - while of course still
growing their market share.

> Your complaints about IPv6 aren't clear.  Is that about internal 
> forwarding?  Is the problem that those internal nodes don't accrue 
> "reputation"?  Why would IPv6 be worse than IPv4?  (I've had internal
> IPv4 forwarding at times.  Those IP addresses happened to be routable 
> addresses, with forward and reverse DNS entries, but that was kind of 
> accidental.)
> (Aside: although not currently the case, I used to and intend to use
> forwarding to provide for secondary mail servers.  I.e. sometimes my
> power goes down or my internet connectivity goes down and I want my
> mail to go to a secondary server and then flow to my main one when it
> comes back.  I haven't put the time in to figure out how I can handle
> inbound DKIM correctly in that case.)
> | I noticed the trend a few years ago already and have been watching
> for | new patterns and collecting millions upon millions of spam
> emails | 
> | Microsoft and Google is dominating email relay and their market
> share | in the geo areas where they dominate, has steadily increased
> each year.
> So it seems to be relaying.
> But I thought that relaying is broken by DKIM so it is no longer done.
> In other words, DKIM is kind of end-to-end with no provision for
> relaying.
> There ought to be support for trusted relaying.  What I mean is: a
> last hop that you trust to not lie about what it is forwarding so you
> can look at the headers it passed to you with as much trust as normal
> last-hop headers.  Without this, your mail system can only really
> look at the last hop.  Is there any formal mechanism for trusted
> relaying?
> | Both monopolies are now using more and more complex email headers.
> I'm guessing that you are trusting the last hop, if it is Google or
> Microsoft, and want to be able to look through their header
> transformations to see what they actually got so you can filter on
> that.  So your complaint is that they are making it more and more
> difficult to look through those header transformations.  Am I correct?
> I guess that there is another problem.  If each trusted forwarder 
> has to be handled differently, there is a limit on how many can be 
> trusted.  Then Google and Microsoft probably make the cut and our
> servers probably don't.
> | The result of this new aggressive push is declining quality of email
> | service for smaller providers - as ham is marked as spam more
> | frequently.
> | 
> | They  (Microsoft and Google) are using their sheer size to bully out
> | more market share and if the trend continues there will be no more
> | 'independent' email providers in the near future as more and more
> | providers are forced to run their email services through one of the
> two | monopolies. 
> So are you saying that they've "accidentally" made it harder for
> providers to "look though" their forwarding when trying to filter?
> | Anyone else noticed the more aggressive system designs, more
> aggressive | non responsiveness to abuse complaints and other non
> ethical behaviors? | And, is there anything that general society can
> even do?
> "Aggressive" seems like a leap.  How about "designed to not
> interoperate well"?
> | If there are only two email providers in the future, how long will
> it | take before there is just one?
> An oligopoly is of the same nature as a monopoly. So what we have is
> already a monopoly regime.  But reducing the number of players would
> almost certainly make things worse.
> [RANT]
> I truly believe that monopolies are the scourge of our era.

monopolies are going to kill us as a species.

we need drastic action and words no longer mean anything.

or are we already at the point where it is just too late?

> Political "free marketeers" don't seem to understand that a free
> market requires constraints on monopolies.  Look at the Republican
> Party in the US.  It seems to be willful blindness because they
> don't even get it when it is explained to them (eg. FCC and Network
> Neutrality)
> - there are only a few ways of dealing with natural monopolies (often
>   caused by the network effect).  They should be used in combination.
>   + public ownership (i.e. government ownership or co-ops).  Not
>     intrinsically better than private monopolies, but with care can
>     operate with a better mandate
>   + regulation
>   + forcing the monopoly to operate in the narrowest possible domain
>     (i.e. without doing anything other than the function subject to
>     the natural monopoly).  A good example would be separating
>     electricity generation from transmission (a natural monopoly)
> Monopolies generate a lot of "rent".  This rent is used to corrupt
> governments in various ways (many tacit and unrecognized by the
> participants).  This seems to be too hard for the electorate
> to understand so nothing gets done.
> It looks as if the next area of big change is going to be with
> autonomous vehicles.  There seems to be no planning done with the
> public interest in mind.  What happens is probably going to be
> determined by corporate competition.  The outcomes are likely to be
> determined by the wrong objective function.
> ---
> Talk Mailing List
> talk@gtalug.org
> https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk

Talk Mailing List

Reply via email to