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: 2,805
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: 2,234
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: 2,805
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
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 182
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
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 79
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
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 182
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
Old 30 Aug 2019, 07:01 PM   #10
JamesHenderson
Essential Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Posts: 467
[quote=xyzzy;608488]

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.

By section 3, do you mean the 3rd place where you can add sieve code - between 5 (vacation) and 6 (calendar)?

I am very interested in having a whitelist without those contacts being in my address book (I do not want to send emails to them, just ensure emails from them get into my inbox).

Would you care to share the generic sieve that you use (without your specific addresses of course)?

cheers,
James.
JamesHenderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31 Aug 2019, 06:20 AM   #11
xyzzy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 182
When I refer to a sieve section number I am referring to the numbered comments in the portions of the sieve script you cannot edit. For example section 3 starts with the comment,

### 3. Sieve generated for spam protection

Or to use your examples section 5 is Vacation and section 6 calendar. It's thus easier and quicker to refer to the explicitly numbered comments rather than counting edit sections.

Below is the portion of my initialization code (just after the require of course). Note, I tend to comment a lot, just my coding style.

Code:
#
# Initialize known_sender to reflect what X-Spam-Known-Sender indicates (i.e., sender is in the Contacts
# list) or for contacts that use subdomains that cannot be exhaustively specified in the Contacts list.
# Note there is also a special case where X-Spam-Known-Sender will be set to "no" even if the contact is
# on the Contacts list. That can happen if there is something bogus in the headers.  When that happens
# "in-addressbook" is added to the end of X-Spam-Known-Sender so that even with "no" it is still known
# it's in the Contacts list.  The known_sender switch being true always guarantees known senders make it
# to through even those with suspicious headers.
#
if header :matches "X-Spam-Known-Sender" ["yes*", "no*in-addressbook*"] {
  set "known_sender" "true";
} elsif address :matches "From" ["*@*abc.tld",         # whitelisted patterns that contacts doesn't support
                                 "*@*xyz.tld",         # if contacts supported full globbing instead of
                                 "*@*.gov",            # just *@domain.tld these tests woudn't be needed.
                                 "*uvwh*"] {
  set "known_sender" "true"; 
} elsif address :matches "To" ["*@LISTSERV.*"] {       # allow subscribed listserv mail lists
  set "known_sender" "true";                           # "To" is the list, "From" is users posting to list
} else {
  set "known_sender" "false";
}
So I then use "known_sender" in places I want to override that might send the message into spam. For example to bypass my black list testing and more to the point to bypass FM own sieve spam check code. So just before section 1 I have:

Code:
#
# Sender is not blacklisted or foreign at this point...
#
# Always bypass the spam score checks for what is considered senders in addition to X-Spam-Known-Sender.
# Unfortunately this also bypasses save-on-SMTP identities and UI generated discard rules but that can't
# be helped since that code below cannot be edited.  Hopefully these will never be important enough for
# known contacts (or whitelisted ones).  If they are then they will have to be explicitly coded.
#
if string :is "${known_sender}" "false" {
And just before section 4 the matching brace to the above test:

Code:
} # not known sender

Last edited by xyzzy : 31 Aug 2019 at 07:16 AM.
xyzzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31 Aug 2019, 05:13 PM   #12
Bamb0
Master of the @
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,350
Ya I dont understand it.......


I email my father and all my stuff goes to his junk folder now... He said he didnt ever mark my stuff as spam/junk..... The thing is when I email my mom it does not goto junk!! (She is on the same server (Yahoo))

I think email has gotton very unreliable now anyway ......... Things are falling apart
Bamb0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31 Aug 2019, 06:13 PM   #13
JamesHenderson
Essential Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Posts: 467
thanks, xyzzy!
JamesHenderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31 Aug 2019, 07:42 PM   #14
xyzzy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 182
Bamb0
I will agree with you yahoo webmail is a pretty poor email service - contacts don't override spam filters, spam filters (which may take forever to train if they can be trained at all) have precedence over user defined filters, user filters have only very basic pattern matching, and blocked addresses have no pattern matching at all). No one says you have to use them.

At any rate IMO yahoo email problems are all off topic in this thread. Maybe there's a more appropriate forum in EmailDiscussions for yahoo.

Last edited by xyzzy : 31 Aug 2019 at 07:58 PM.
xyzzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31 Aug 2019, 08:57 PM   #15
Bamb0
Master of the @
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,350
Yes I know but I figured this was a good thread to post it in........ (Seeing its the same thing)

Im sorry for posting it in this thread though......


EDIT:

My father said he added me to his contacts and so far I am not going to Junk anymore........ I hope it lasts!!

Last edited by Bamb0 : 1 Sep 2019 at 07:23 AM.
Bamb0 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 09:28 PM.

 

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