Google spam-detection [WAS: Re: [PATCH 10/12] Grab the payload of DL7 file]

[Jeroen Massar]

On 2016-04-28 11:17, "Paul-Erik Törrönen" wrote:
> Got caught in moderation as I used incorrect sender info.
> 
> On Mon, April 25, 2016 22:39, Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
>> though not as often as those from the subsurface list. The GMail spam
> filters seem to be pretty bad on the false positives nowadays...
> 
> Sorry for coming in late into this discussion.
> 
> A couple of things that could improve message handling through Google
> filters

Google (and many other such providers) are a pain in the .... regarding
low-volume mailing lists/hosts. Actually most of these "spam solutions"
rely on a steady flow of mail coming from a host. As then they are not
considered spam as "it is a regular amount of spam" and thus most just
goes through.

Try contacting google for solving this problem. Indeed, even if you
reach/are an employee they won't be able to answer the question of how
to solve spam filtering for their products...

The real answer is to use a better mail provider that does not filter so
harshly. IMHO storing mail at a large corporation with no oversight is a
silly idea anyway...

> is to add SPF- and DKIM-entries to subsurface-divelog.org DNS.

SPF is envelope from based, thus should in theory be doable. Given there
is only likely one mailinglist box, it could work.
BUT, as there are misconfigured receivers, they will check SPF records,
wrongly compare that to the Mail-From and voila, things break.

DKIM is impossible as the list cannot sign the message for the end user.
DKIM is also annoying, as signatures are easily broken by the list
software (fortunately no subject modifications happens on this list as
that is the primary problem).

Check this message btw, it will be DKIM signed, but on *my* side.

I also got SPF records for my source domain, thus forwarding mostly
seems to work; but we do not see the amount of bounces that the
list-admin sees ;)

> I made a cursory check and it seems that the domain currently does not
> have these entries in the DNS-record.

Because it would also break a lot of things.

Greets,
 Jeroen