4 ms·
Isn't this a spam blocking technique?
by arn 14y ago
Isn't this a spam blocking technique?
- sp332 14y agoIt should send the messages to your spam folder, then.
- arn 14y agoya I agree. I don't like that behavior at all (I hate false positives more than I hate spam). I just remember there being debate/discussion about this before. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/tzink/archive/2011/08/09/why-silently-dropping-mail-is-a-bad-idea.aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/b/tzink/archive/2011/08/09/why-silentl... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_delivery_report#Silently_dropping_messages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_delivery_report#Silently_dr... "As discussed in Section 7.8 and Section 7.9 below, dropping mail without notification of the sender is permitted in practice. However, it is extremely dangerous and violates a long tradition and community expectations that mail is either delivered or returned. If silent message-dropping is misused, it could easily undermine confidence in the reliability of the Internet's mail systems. So silent dropping of messages should be considered only in those cases where there is very high confidence that the messages are seriously fraudulent or otherwise inappropriate."
- qeorge 14y agoIt could be server side spam filtering (not all spam messages make it to your spam folder with any provider - the worst offenders are often just thrown out). Just saying it is possible that this is an over-aggressive spam filter vs. Apple taking such an invasive measure. Although, Apple has done similar crazy things before, so who knows.
- tlrobinson 14y ago"not all spam messages make it to your spam folder with any provider - the worst offenders are often just thrown out" This is news to me. Citation needed?
- goblin89 14y agoRussian mail provider Mail.ru did that, maybe still does. I blame white-listing, as perfectly valid mail from custom domains could become missing.
- lloeki 14y agoGreylisting, for one. You could also reasonably configure a filter to not land emails over a spam threshold. Given the amount and type of spam in my Gmail Spam label, I'm quite sure there's a hard filter in place there too.
- haroldp 14y agoGreylisting does not throw anything out. It does the exact opposite. The mail server simply says, "I have a temporary problem, so I can't take this right now. Try again later" Mail servers are supposed to (and do) try again, at which time a greylisted message will be delivered. Accepting a message for delivery In Go Faith and then dropping it on the floor, is poor, lazy, cheap, RFC-breaking spam filtering.
- lloeki 14y agoWhat I mean is that greylisting is a trick mechanism where some mails, declared spam based on an unrelated and technical criteria, never reach the user's spam folder. This contradicts the 'spam should go to spam folder' point.
- qeorge 14y agoPostini.com (Google), Forefront (Exchange), and Barracuda Networks are some products/vendors in the space - its a whole industry. Just Google around a bit for "server side spam filtering" and such. Anecdote: we use hosted Exchange from Microsoft. I tried to setup a cron job to email us all at 4:57 with the subject line "Get The Fuck Out". Those don't come through either.
- radio4fan 14y agoYahoo (particularly when providing services for BT) silently delete some spam, even mail with a raw SA score < 1.5. And they don't respond to complaints, even from their own users. I've been running the same pukka mailing list for 12 years, I'm in their abuse feedback loop, have proved exclusive ownership of the mail server, all mail is DKIM signed with valid SPF records, mail is accepted with a 250 OK, you name it. Still they bin my emails, but only to some accounts. No rhyme or reason, no bounce, no spam folder. Just never arrives.
- taligent 14y agoThat's the thing though. Apple has never filtered emails before or even hinted that they would. I'm going to take a guess that this is just a misconfiguration in the spam filters.
- jonknee 14y ago> I'm going to take a guess that this is just a misconfiguration in the spam filters. A misconfiguration in your email server that results in emails being silently dropped is about as bad of a misconfiguration as you can have. That shouldn't even be an option to configure.
- sp332 14y agoIsn't that generally done on the receiving end? In this case, the message is simply never sent.
- taligent 14y agoIt depends what email account he sent it to. It seems like at least Apple and Google are both using F-Secure. So it could be a bug in their definitions files.
- haroldp 14y agoThat is the wrong way to run a mail server. I know how common it is at big providers, but it's still wrong. You should REJECT a message if you won't deliver it. If it was a legit message inappropriately REJECTed, then the server that's relaying it can generate a bounce back to the sender, and something can be figured out. Dropping a message on the floor like that, after you have promised to deliver it is almost always the Wrong Way.
- travisp 14y agoI imagine the reason that it's done is because rejecting it gives spammers more information that could possibly be used to get around the rejection. It's much harder if they aren't sure whether or not the message was received. Whether or not that's appropriate is another thing, but that is probably the rationale behind it.
- haroldp 14y agoMore likely the rationale is that it's easier to filter stuff asynchronously after it is sitting in queue, and there's no longer a TCP connection hanging off it, waiting for a response. In other words, it's cheaper.
- biot 14y agoThat doesn't conform to RFC 2821: 4.2.5 Reply Codes After DATA and the Subsequent <CRLF>.<CRLF> When an SMTP server returns a positive completion status (2yz code) after the DATA command is completed with <CRLF>.<CRLF>, it accepts responsibility for: - delivering the message (if the recipient mailbox exists), or - if attempts to deliver the message fail due to transient conditions, retrying delivery some reasonable number of times at intervals as specified in section 4.5.4. - if attempts to deliver the message fail due to permanent conditions, or if repeated attempts to deliver the message fail due to transient conditions, returning appropriate notification to the sender of the original message (using the address in the SMTP MAIL command). If it's spam, the email should be rejected while the SMTP connection is still established with an error code (4XX or 5XX). If the email was accepted for delivery, there are really only two options: deliver the email or bounce it back to the sender.
- ralfd 14y agoRFC 5321 says: "As discussed in Section 7.8 and Section 7.9 below, dropping mail without notification of the sender is permitted in practice." http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-6.2 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5321#section-6.2
- leephillips 14y agoGoogle also runs an smtp server that violates the relevant RFCs, but nobody seems to care much: http://lee-phillips.org/gmailRewriting/ http://lee-phillips.org/gmailRewriting/
- lenazegher 14y agoIs there a spam folder for outgoing mail?
- mikestew 14y agoThe sent folder still works as expected. Oddly enough, offending emails even sync in the sent folder across devices. So Apple doesn't delete your original work (they'll even sync it for you), they just won't send it.
- lloeki 14y agoThis looks like a hint that the mechanism works at the SMTP level (which affects both ingress and egress).
- blowski 14y agoThe OP mentions that it doesn't go to spam, it's deleted entirely and unretreivably. It should also be possible to turn it off.