EmailDiscussions.com  

Go Back   EmailDiscussions.com > Email Service Provider-specific Forums > FastMail Forum
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Stay in touch wirelessly

FastMail Forum All posts relating to FastMail.FM should go here: suggestions, comments, requests for help, complaints, technical issues etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 4 Dec 2018, 07:59 AM   #1
bschelle
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 13
Stop from going to Spam

I have a problem of a trusted site. Their emails now go to my Spam folder. I have never sent any to spam and I have been using it for years. All of a sudden their emails are going to spam. I have them set up in my contacts, but that doesn't seem to matter. I need HELP!
bschelle is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 4 Dec 2018, 11:10 AM   #2
BritTim
The "e" in e-mail
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: mostly in Thailand
Posts: 2,692
If you post the full headers of one of the affected messages (obscuring personally identified information) we should be able to diagnose the cause of the messages going to spam. This is a prerequisite to suggesting the most appropriate remedy.
BritTim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 Dec 2018, 04:44 AM   #3
bschelle
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 13
Is this what you need?

Return-Path:
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41])
by sloti1d3t04 (Cyrus 3.1.5-656-g84f879f-fmstable-20181126v1) with LMTPA;
Tue, 04 Dec 2018 11:12:15 -0500
X-Cyrus-Session-Id: sloti1d3t04-329869-1543939935-2-1150361149621078892
X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 3.0
X-Spam-known-sender: no ("Email failed DMARC policy for domain"); in-addressbook
X-Spam: spam
X-Spam-score: 5.2
X-Spam-hits: BAYES_00 -1.9, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32 0.001, HTML_MESSAGE 0.001,
ME_BETA_RULES 0.01, ME_NOAUTH 0.01, ME_QUARANTINE 8,
MIME_HTML_ONLY 0.723, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL 0.665,
T_MANY_HDRS_LCASE 0.01, LANGUAGES en, BAYES_USED user, SA_VERSION 3.4.2
X-Spam-source: IP='17.58.6.40', Host='pv50p00im-ztdg10011301.me.com', Country='US',
FromHeader='com', MailFrom='com'
X-Spam-charsets:
X-IgnoreVacation: yes ("Email failed DMARC policy for domain")
X-Resolved-to:
Received: from mx3 ([10.202.2.202])
by compute1.internal (LMTPProxy); Tue, 04 Dec 2018 11:12:15 -0500
Received: from mx3.messagingengine.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mailmx.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E67A465F9
for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 11:12:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mx3.messagingengine.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mx3.messagingengine.com (Authentication Milter) with ESMTP
id F179A91E267;
Tue, 4 Dec 2018 11:12:14 -0500

Last edited by bschelle : 6 Dec 2018 at 12:31 AM.
bschelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 Dec 2018, 04:49 AM   #4
FredOnline
The "e" in e-mail
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 2,101
If those are real e-mail addresses I suggest you change them immediately in your post.
FredOnline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 Dec 2018, 09:08 AM   #5
BritTim
The "e" in e-mail
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: mostly in Thailand
Posts: 2,692
As Fred says, edit those email addresses (the bit before the @).

The reason for the messages going to spam is mainly that the DNS for the domain xome.com is configured to indicate that the sending server (Host='pv50p00im-ztdg10011301.me.com') is not one of the expected sending servers for messages from xome.com. The records in the DNS that are implicated are known as the DMARC policy.

There are ways that you could override the decision to put the messages in the spam folder. However, this is primarily a problem at the sending end. You could explain this to your correspondent, and see if they want to communicate with the administrator of the domain to get the issue resolved.
BritTim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5 Dec 2018, 08:41 PM   #6
xyzzy
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 35
By coincidence I just happened to stumble into this same problem last night where the presence of the contact in the contact list didn't override the spam check.

Code:
X-Spam-known-sender: no ("Email failed DMARC policy for domain")
X-Spam: spam
X-Spam-score: 8.9
So is it that DMARC problem that's causing X-Spam-known-sender is set to "no" even though it's in my contacts list? Bummer in my case since I can't get the sender to change this since it's a state government organization (a .gov domain).

I wonder if this is somehow related to the fact that they are sending to my forwarding service? But if so why just this one email? Don't have a problem with any others.

I "fixed" this problem by adding some sieve code to intercept the message before it gets to the X-Spam-known-sender spam test. I already had such code in place to whitelist some email addresses where a simple *@abc.tld wildcard match is not sufficient and Contacts doesn't support anything more complex. Specifically *@*XYZ.tld and *@*.tld kinds of address matches. So here I want all .gov's to get through just in case so I added a check for *@*.gov, file it into my Inbox, and stop.

Now I'm worried things like this could happen with other contacts in the future so I have to decide either never discard any spam or raise the discard cutoff to a higher number, say 10 or 12 to have a higher probability of catching these things (currently I don't have any discard threshold specified) at least in the spam folder.

Note, I have had FM for only about 6 months and this is the first real potential problem or concern I've encountered. Is there any specific reason the server (or whoever inserts X-Spam-known-sender into the headers) not make the users contacts have precedence over everything else? In other words if it in the contacts list set X-Spam-known-sender to "yes" no matter what.

Last edited by xyzzy : 5 Dec 2018 at 08:53 PM.
xyzzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6 Dec 2018, 03:54 AM   #7
SideshowBob
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 28
It's very easy to spoof header from addresses, so it's understandable that they don't whitelist a DMARC fail. However, if you look at the X-Spam-known-sender header, it ends in "in-addressbook", which I presume you could use in a bit of sieve script to get the behaviour you want.
SideshowBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6 Dec 2018, 04:54 AM   #8
xyzzy
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 35
Hey, you're right. I didn't show it in my previous post but I do see "in-addressbook" at the end of the X-Spam-known-sender header (OP's header too).

I have to think about this some more but right now my preference is I rather have a spoofed email from those contacts delivered to my inbox where my email client (Thunderbird set up as POP) can receive it rather than having to more often check the webmail spam folder than I'd like for such emails because I can't trust my contacts list overriding the spam test.

This would mean I have to disable sections 1, 2, and 3 of the sieve script and write my own being careful not to use the UI that might have added stuff to these sections.

Rewriting section 3 or possibly needing stuff for sections 1 and 2 is not that big of a deal though. Ahead of section 1 I already have a big block of code picking off repeat offender spammers (almost 50 so far - my blacklist) and sending them to a different folder which will eventually turn into a giant discard rule. Essentially a blacklist that's not quite ready for prime time which is why I am currently sorting them into their own folder.

That's also where my special whitelist is where I added the *.*.gov test. With that big blacklist a few more lines to rewrite section 3 with the added "in-addressbook" test isn't going to be significant anyway.

Hmm, wonder if I could convince FM to add another checkbox to their Spam Protection settings to let the user decide to always honer the contacts list from the UI level?

Update:
Just thought of a way where I don't have to rewrite sections 1, 2, and 3 (well, maybe the backscatter code). In that block before section 1 where I was going to rewrite the stuff I simply add

Code:
 if not header :contains "X-Spam-known-sender" "in-addressbook" {
at the end of the block before section 1 and a right brace in the editing block before section 4.

Last edited by xyzzy : 6 Dec 2018 at 06:38 AM.
xyzzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10 Dec 2018, 05:26 AM   #9
bschelle
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 13
I sent the info to the sender. Hope they can fix it. Is there any other way to combat this? The suggestions made already are way above my skill level.
bschelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +9. The time now is 09:52 PM.

 

Copyright EmailDiscussions.com 1998-2013. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy