3 ms·

My only complaint about PM is their spam handling. I continue to get spam, using the same exact body text, and it goes right to my inbox. Even after reporting.

My only complaint about PM is their spam handling. I continue to get spam, using the same exact body text, and it goes right to my inbox. Even after reporting. Their response is for me to continue reporting spam. This has been going on for months. No point in reporting spam if you will not even block it.

dboreham 5y ago
Spam filtering with zero false positives is an unsolved problem. So having some false negatives would tell me that this is a high quality service. Google et al just send job offers, credit card payment due reminders and high value customer queries to spam.
- schipplock 5y ago
  You are correct. However, iluvcommunism is criticizing the fact that ProtonMail isn't improving on filtering out real spam. Getting duplicate spam, again and again, is a waste of time. I would look at the spam folder once a day instead of deleting n-numbers of spam mails in the inbox. When I moved an old e-mail domain to ProtonMail, the number of spam e-mails hitting my inbox increased dramatically. So it's not even close to as good as its competitors in this regard. I moved to Tutanota. I now get even more spam :(. Google, Zoho and Yandex handle spam better (IMHO). Regarding ProtonMail, they will tell you something like this: Moving the messages to spam will automatically add the address to your blacklist. And as we all know, spam is always sent from the same address, right? The Blocklist is useless in this context. They just need to improve their spam filter. The rest is fine (IMHO).
  - Avamander 5y ago
    > The Blocklist is useless in this context. All blocklists are useless in some contexts. There's not even a silver-ish bullet against spam. Sender blacklist however is one of the most effective ones, but at some point yeah you might have to create filters to match certain subjects and stuff. I guess ProtonMail could hire someone to just improve spam filtering, that'd be the only thing that'd rise the filtering quality really.
- boring_twenties 5y ago
  Gmail has been sending every email from to ubuntu-security-announce@lists.ubuntu.com to spam for me for the last several months. Anyone else? I've been marking every single one of them as 'Not Spam', but to no avail. (I do realize I can create an explicit filter rule to avoid this, but at this point I just want to see how it plays out.)
  - Avamander 5y ago
    If you "view original" does it show if SPF/DKIM/DMARC pass? Because it might be that something has broken.
    - boring_twenties 5y ago
      Well, I don't expect SPF to pass, because it's forwarded from another address and SPF is stupid and breaks forwarding. In this case, though, the SPF says neutral and even hard fail doesn't cause persistent problems with other messages. More interestingly, DKIM is "neutral" too. The message body doesn't seem to be modified by the forwarding mail server as far as I can tell... guess this might be canonical's fault after all? It's been going on for months, how am I the only one that's noticed it? ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@canonical.com header.s=20210705 header.b=im31FPsM; spf=neutral (google.com: XXX is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ubuntu-security-announce-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com) smtp.mailfrom=ubuntu-security-announce-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=canonical.com (edited to fix formatting)
      - Avamander 5y ago
        Better list software and forwarders allow rewriting "from" headers, it's generally better because of SPF/DKIM/DMARC to do so. You can leave the correct `Reply-To` and it should work fine for all list members using anything from this century. Right now it seems that it's `lists.ubuntu.com` and `canonical.com` in both cases, Canonical could fix SPF and/or DKIM, for the very least for their own e-mails forwarded by their own relay.
Avamander 5y ago
It happens to even Google. If it's the same text you might be able to create a manual filter. In the end the issue might be that some big vendor is sending similar letters that are *not* spam, so some simple bayesian or even a NN can't mark it confidently as spam. There aren't enough words to describe how difficult the problem of spam really is.

dboreham 5y ago

Spam filtering with zero false positives is an unsolved problem. So having some false negatives would tell me that this is a high quality service. Google et al just send job offers, credit card payment due reminders and high value customer queries to spam.

schipplock 5y ago
You are correct. However, iluvcommunism is criticizing the fact that ProtonMail isn't improving on filtering out real spam. Getting duplicate spam, again and again, is a waste of time. I would look at the spam folder once a day instead of deleting n-numbers of spam mails in the inbox. When I moved an old e-mail domain to ProtonMail, the number of spam e-mails hitting my inbox increased dramatically. So it's not even close to as good as its competitors in this regard. I moved to Tutanota. I now get even more spam :(. Google, Zoho and Yandex handle spam better (IMHO). Regarding ProtonMail, they will tell you something like this: Moving the messages to spam will automatically add the address to your blacklist. And as we all know, spam is always sent from the same address, right? The Blocklist is useless in this context. They just need to improve their spam filter. The rest is fine (IMHO).
- Avamander 5y ago
  > The Blocklist is useless in this context. All blocklists are useless in some contexts. There's not even a silver-ish bullet against spam. Sender blacklist however is one of the most effective ones, but at some point yeah you might have to create filters to match certain subjects and stuff. I guess ProtonMail could hire someone to just improve spam filtering, that'd be the only thing that'd rise the filtering quality really.
boring_twenties 5y ago
Gmail has been sending every email from to ubuntu-security-announce@lists.ubuntu.com to spam for me for the last several months. Anyone else? I've been marking every single one of them as 'Not Spam', but to no avail. (I do realize I can create an explicit filter rule to avoid this, but at this point I just want to see how it plays out.)
- Avamander 5y ago
  If you "view original" does it show if SPF/DKIM/DMARC pass? Because it might be that something has broken.
  - boring_twenties 5y ago
    Well, I don't expect SPF to pass, because it's forwarded from another address and SPF is stupid and breaks forwarding. In this case, though, the SPF says neutral and even hard fail doesn't cause persistent problems with other messages. More interestingly, DKIM is "neutral" too. The message body doesn't seem to be modified by the forwarding mail server as far as I can tell... guess this might be canonical's fault after all? It's been going on for months, how am I the only one that's noticed it? ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=neutral (body hash did not verify) header.i=@canonical.com header.s=20210705 header.b=im31FPsM; spf=neutral (google.com: XXX is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ubuntu-security-announce-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com) smtp.mailfrom=ubuntu-security-announce-bounces@lists.ubuntu.com; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=canonical.com (edited to fix formatting)
    - Avamander 5y ago
      Better list software and forwarders allow rewriting "from" headers, it's generally better because of SPF/DKIM/DMARC to do so. You can leave the correct `Reply-To` and it should work fine for all list members using anything from this century. Right now it seems that it's `lists.ubuntu.com` and `canonical.com` in both cases, Canonical could fix SPF and/or DKIM, for the very least for their own e-mails forwarded by their own relay.

Avamander 5y ago

It happens to even Google. If it's the same text you might be able to create a manual filter. In the end the issue might be that some big vendor is sending similar letters that are *not* spam, so some simple bayesian or even a NN can't mark it confidently as spam. There aren't enough words to describe how difficult the problem of spam really is.