5 ms·
I am seeing Google constantly fail to catch obvious spam emails. At this point I suspect there is some institutional error on their part, where bad actors insid
by NikhilVerma 4y ago
I am seeing Google constantly fail to catch obvious spam emails. At this point I suspect there is some institutional error on their part, where bad actors inside the org are allowing certain domains to simply not be spam filtered.
- fuckcensorship 4y ago“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
- SoftTalker 4y agoSorry, a "your account has been locked, please reset your password" email to an .edu address from a gmail.com address is 100% always fraudulent, a 5th grader could tell you that, yet google lets it go through.
- rdpintqogeogsaa 4y agoCould be a study to see how much response such an obviously fraudulent e-mail gets, sent from that same university conducting the study. I admit that it's a fringe case, but it could be a thing.
- prawn 4y agoI mark email from someone spam over and over, and it can still get past Gmail. It's infuriating.
- 2143 4y agoCreate a custom filter in Gmail to delete it; let it bypass the inbox and go straight to trash. (There's a "Filter messages like these" option somewhere)
- krageon 4y agoYour fix is essentially "roll your own spam filter"
- prawn 4y agoI'm aware, but I would've thought that marking something as spam would stop more almost-identical messages from the exact same email address. Having to create a custom filter for all the individual spammers that make it through is frustrating.
- r1ch 4y agoI've been seeing some cleverly encoded emails with multiple MIME parts that bypass the spam filter. Gmail decodes one representation but displays another. Luckily the content they show to the spam filter is mostly static so a regular filter can catch it.
- chaoz_ 4y agoI've done some experiments with Gmail/Outlook/other spam detection clients on different types of spam/phishing etc. There's always someone who claims simple naive bayes algo would do better than Google. I'm not able to share the research data, but Gmail filter is a lot better than everything else you see on the market, especially when it's not a newsletter-like advertisement spam, but an actual phishing attack on Org. Some people say Outlook has better filtering func, but usually tests are not representative and Outlook simply has stricter rule for unwarmed-ip. Which is not that great of a feature in real world scenario.
- 2Gkashmiri 4y agohow do mail delivery services work with this in protecting users from spam because their aim is to reach the inbox for their customers, spammers included
- Beltalowda 4y agoAnecdotally, I have to say I rarely have issues with FastMail's spam filtering, which uses SpamAssassin (not sure what their setup is exactly of course). I rarely get spam in my inbox (maybe an email or two a month), and it almost never marks things as false positives (last one was years ago).
- TheNewsIsHere 4y agoMy experience mirrors yours. Fastmail’s filtering is at least as good as Google’s for my inboxes, but Google and the other big players don’t seem to have spam filtering better than Fastmail’s on balance. Casually controlling for things like inbox age, I still get a bit more spam in my Google inboxes than in my Fastmail inboxes. Once you’ve warmed up/activated the personal mail filter in Fastmail, it seems to work better than anyone else’s.
- chaoz_ 4y agoSpamAssasin does ok only on subset of spam emails.. The problem is that underlying model is not capable to differentiate fake email from your boss (unless it's really simple) VS many other external emails you get. I guess you would still want that 2nd level of protection for your ORG with sensitive data even if some "please buy X" - spam emails are still getting in. Ofc Google is also not ideal :)