My ISP automatically tags suspected spam (often incorrectly) and places the emails into a special folder called 'junk'.
Years ago, all of these emails got downloaded along with the rest of my mail and I used spamassassin and/or filters to deal with it.
For some time (a couple of years?), these tagged emails have no longer arrived with the rest of my mail. I just presumed that I wasn't getting spam: I must just be getting the hang of being very careful.
I was expecting a VERY important contract yesterday that never showed up. This morning, I requested it again. The sender said he sent it yesterday and I should check my spam folder. I said that I don't have one (Kmail doesn't come with a junk folder by default), but I would check my ISP's webmail interface. Sure enough, the document was there, but tagged as spam and moved into the 'junk' folder.
Question: Why doesn't all of my mail get downloaded into Kmail? Do I have to manually create a 'junk' folder (ie., match the name of the folder of the ISP) in order to get all of my mail? Or will spam (both positive and false positive) always be skipped?
In the meantime, as I was so upset about the near loss of the important document (and the thought of what else might have vanished in the past couple of years), I disabled the ISP's spam control altogether.
On Sun, 2016-03-13 at 21:18 -0600, P. Gueckel wrote:
Question: Why doesn't all of my mail get downloaded into Kmail? Do I have to manually create a 'junk' folder (ie., match the name of the folder of the ISP) in order to get all of my mail? Or will spam (both positive and false positive) always be skipped?
I don't use Kmail, but when asking this kind of question it's very important to at least say whether you access the account using POP or IMAP. If it's POP then there's your answer. POP doesn't understand server-side folders, including junk. If it's IMAP, have you subscribed to the server-side junk folder?
In the meantime, as I was so upset about the near loss of the important document (and the thought of what else might have vanished in the past couple of years), I disabled the ISP's spam control altogether.
I'd strongly advise you to reconsider. The ISPs spam control may be a lot better than yours (though possibly it has to be trained, given your experience), it works with the webmail as well as your local MUA, and you don't want to be wasting bandwidth on spam when you don't have to.
poc
Am 14.03.2016 um 10:25 schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan:
On Sun, 2016-03-13 at 21:18 -0600, P. Gueckel wrote:
Question: Why doesn't all of my mail get downloaded into Kmail? Do I have to manually create a 'junk' folder (ie., match the name of the folder of the ISP) in order to get all of my mail? Or will spam (both positive and false positive) always be skipped?
I don't use Kmail, but when asking this kind of question it's very important to at least say whether you access the account using POP or IMAP
if was clearly said in the subject "Re: Kmail, pop3, spam..." and so it's a PEBKAC type of problem
OK, thanks to both of you. That's a big help. I didn't know that pop3 only checks inbox *by definition* That's the answer to my problem.
Unfortunately, I used to use imap for a brief period about 3 years ago, but it turned out that my ISP was offering that for free only on trial. Now, it's for an extra fee, so I had to revert to pop3. With gmail, I could try imap again, since I recall liking it, back when I had tried it on my ISP, but I do not want important/financial/business/etc mail going through gmail.
I realize that all email is insecure in transit, but I would like to believe that at least the servers of my ISP are trustworthy enough to warrant my confidence and my business and my loyalty. That's why I pay them.
Am 14.03.2016 um 16:28 schrieb P. Gueckel:
OK, thanks to both of you. That's a big help. I didn't know that pop3 only checks inbox *by definition* That's the answer to my problem.
Unfortunately, I used to use imap for a brief period about 3 years ago, but it turned out that my ISP was offering that for free only on trial. Now, it's for an extra fee, so I had to revert to pop3. With gmail, I could try imap again, since I recall liking it, back when I had tried it on my ISP, but I do not want important/financial/business/etc mail going through gmail.
I realize that all email is insecure in transit, but I would like to believe that at least the servers of my ISP are trustworthy enough to warrant my confidence and my business and my loyalty. That's why I pay them
there is no trustworthy at all unless a mail is encrypted and honestly in case of security i would trust Google much more than a random ISP
hence we have our own mailservers and offer also mailservice and spamfiltering on own inhouse infrastructure to customers which want to be sure that all data never touchs any 3rd party except the nomal mailflow from the sender to the MX
Reindl Harald wrote:
there is no trustworthy at all unless a mail is
encrypted and honestly
in case of security i would trust Google much more
than a random ISP
I know what you're saying. My ISP is the telephone company, so it's not exactly random, but I know what you mein. I wish encrypted mail were the standard, but, even if I tried to instigate it, it would only be more secure if both ends were encrypting (there's is also electronic communication within the office, which might not be encrypted, etc). Could electronic mail ever be completely secure, so that one could _know_ that no quotes or portions could ever be shared without one's consent?
I believe it was once said that Google scans emails for keywords &c. I just don't like the idea of my financial statements and 'serious' correspondence being scanned for keywords and having this information added to my profile---that could well be commodified and sold.
hence we have our own mailservers and offer also
mailservice and
spamfiltering on own inhouse infrastructure to
customers which want to
be sure that all data never touchs any 3rd party
except the nomal
mailflow from the sender to the MX
I wish I could do that, but it's not worth the extra cost and headache for me as an individual. I used to have a domain that came with this service, but is the hosting company really more secure/trustworthy than my ISP? Doing it in-house is the best, for sure.
Am 14.03.2016 um 17:03 schrieb P. Gueckel:
Reindl Harald wrote:
there is no trustworthy at all unless a mail is
encrypted and honestly
in case of security i would trust Google much more
than a random ISP
I know what you're saying. My ISP is the telephone company, so it's not exactly random
well, and the telephone company has more or less (most times less) maintained mailservers - if it's for free or nearly free it will be less
frankly telephone companies are regulry too stupid for anything, be it DNS where the put after every domain change a unwanted backup-MX automatically, don't change modems with well known security bugs like DOS over port 53 and silently close port 53 on the device itself keep it vulnerable
in other words: the telephone company / ISP for my internet line is the last one where i outsource any relevant service
but I know what you mein. I wish encrypted mail were the standard, but, even if I tried to instigate it, it would only be more secure if both ends were encrypting (there's is also electronic communication within the office, which might not be encrypted, etc). Could electronic mail ever be completely secure, so that one could _know_ that no quotes or portions could ever be shared without one's consent?
you can't control what somebody quotes and forwards unencrypted later but with GPG the sender encrypts the message with the *public key* of the RCPT and it can only be decrypted with the RCPT's *private key*
I just talked to tech support. The imap surcharge was in effect way back when they first introduced the service. That was likely over 5 years ago. The tech doesn't even know when they stopped charging extra.
I will switch to imap later today.
On Monday 14 Mar 2016 11:43:48 P. Gueckel wrote:
I just talked to tech support. The imap surcharge was in effect way back when they first introduced the service. That was likely over 5 years ago. The tech doesn't even know when they stopped charging extra.
I will switch to imap later today.
Be aware of this old bug if your provider uses Courier. I got stung by this and Michael Fuchs WORKAROUND in comment #85 does the job.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=338186
It still exists in kmail 5.x apparently comment #90
Colin
Colin J Thomson wrote:
Be aware of this old bug if your provider uses
Courier. I got stung by
this and Michael Fuchs WORKAROUND in comment #85
does the job.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=338186
It still exists in kmail 5.x apparently comment #90
Thanks. I'll monitor carefully for the next few weeks... and then ;-)
On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 10:03 -0600, P. Gueckel wrote:
I believe it was once said that Google scans emails for keywords &c. I just don't like the idea of my financial statements and 'serious' correspondence being scanned for keywords and having this information added to my profile---that could well be commodified and sold.
How do you expect them to filter spam without scanning your messages?
poc
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 10:03 -0600, P. Gueckel
wrote:
I believe it was once said that Google scans emails for keywords &c. I just don't like the idea of my financial statements and 'serious' correspondence being scanned for keywords and having this
information
added to my profile---that could well be
commodified
and sold.
How do you expect them to filter spam without
scanning your messages?
Good point. Scanning is a privacy breach that likely violates privacy legislation. All the more reason to disable the feature and do your own scanning.
On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 11:45 -0600, P. Gueckel wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 10:03 -0600, P. Gueckel
wrote:
I believe it was once said that Google scans emails for keywords &c. I just don't like the idea of my financial statements and 'serious' correspondence being scanned for keywords and having this
information
added to my profile---that could well be
commodified
and sold.
How do you expect them to filter spam without
scanning your messages?
Good point. Scanning is a privacy breach that likely violates privacy legislation. All the more reason to disable the feature and do your own scanning.
If it's a privacy breach, then sue the ISP. However I'm pretty sure you'll find you agreed to it when you accepted their terms of service.
poc
Am 14.03.2016 um 18:45 schrieb P. Gueckel:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
How do you expect them to filter spam without
scanning your messages?
Good point. Scanning is a privacy breach that likely violates privacy legislation. All the more reason to disable the feature and do your own scanning
*lol*
we have days where 500000 mails for a few hundret users are rejected straight ahead by postscreen-scoring on the MTA long before content-filters become a topic
have fun receive that all, scan it local and what about false positives you overlook - on our MX servers *any* message above 8.0 socre points is rejected unconditionally, so a sane sender generates *it's own bounce* to his enduser and nothing is silently dropped
between 5.5 and 7.9 points it get tagged *but not* moved somwehere, just a SA header and a mark in the subject - the user is responsible at it#s own how to handle such mails by headers and/or subject
8-10% of all mails not rejected straight away because bad reputation based ona mix of 50 combined dnsbl/ndswl are rejcted by milter
have fun doing that local where you *must not* reject and backscatter
forgot to mention - you *never ever* will be able to reach a compareable hitrate with your local scanning compared to a global bayes feeded with currently 85000 spam and ham samples and we are *really* a small player in filtering
not only if it comes to filter out spam - also to prevent false positives based on ham samples
/etc/mail/spamassassin/local-*.cf score BAYES_00 -3.5 score BAYES_05 -2.0 score BAYES_20 -1.0 score BAYES_40 -0.5 score BAYES_50 1.5 score BAYES_60 3.5 score BAYES_80 5.5 score BAYES_95 6.5 score BAYES_99 7.5 score BAYES_999 0.4
0 62431 SPAM 0 21895 HAM 0 2585854 TOKEN
BAYES_00 14394 74.24 % BAYES_05 415 2.14 % BAYES_20 490 2.52 % BAYES_40 474 2.44 % BAYES_50 1495 7.71 % BAYES_60 195 1.00 % 8.74 % (OF TOTAL BLOCKED) BAYES_80 158 0.81 % 7.08 % (OF TOTAL BLOCKED) BAYES_95 147 0.75 % 6.58 % (OF TOTAL BLOCKED) BAYES_99 1619 8.35 % 72.56 % (OF TOTAL BLOCKED) BAYES_999 1442 7.43 % 64.63 % (OF TOTAL BLOCKED)
DELIVERED 26962 94.28 % DNSWL 26683 93.31 % SPF 18807 65.77 % SPF/DKIM WL 8088 28.28 % SHORTCIRCUIT 9185 32.12 %
BLOCKED 2231 7.80 % SPAMMY 2119 7.41 % 94.97 % (OF TOTAL BLOCKED)
Am 14.03.2016 um 19:40 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 14.03.2016 um 18:45 schrieb P. Gueckel:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
How do you expect them to filter spam without
scanning your messages?
Good point. Scanning is a privacy breach that likely violates privacy legislation. All the more reason to disable the feature and do your own scanning
*lol*
we have days where 500000 mails for a few hundret users are rejected straight ahead by postscreen-scoring on the MTA long before content-filters become a topic
have fun receive that all, scan it local and what about false positives you overlook - on our MX servers *any* message above 8.0 socre points is rejected unconditionally, so a sane sender generates *it's own bounce* to his enduser and nothing is silently dropped
between 5.5 and 7.9 points it get tagged *but not* moved somwehere, just a SA header and a mark in the subject - the user is responsible at it#s own how to handle such mails by headers and/or subject
8-10% of all mails not rejected straight away because bad reputation based ona mix of 50 combined dnsbl/ndswl are rejcted by milter
have fun doing that local where you *must not* reject and backscatter
Am 14.03.2016 um 04:18 schrieb P. Gueckel:
I was expecting a VERY important contract yesterday that never showed up. This morning, I requested it again. The sender said he sent it yesterday and I should check my spam folder. I said that I don't have one (Kmail doesn't come with a junk folder by default), but I would check my ISP's webmail interface. Sure enough, the document was there, but tagged as spam and moved into the 'junk' folder
just don't use POP3 when on the server-side filters like sieve or spam-folders are active because POP3 *by definition* only checks INBOX
-
Colin J Thomson -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
Peter G. -
Reindl Harald