Anyway, the issue with cctech/talk going to the spam folder as far as GMAIL
is concerned is that
does not encrypt the messages. I
presume that's the mail server domain.
Bill
On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 9:47 AM Dave Wade G4UGM via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
I believe that the BIG PROBLEM is the unthinking
liveware that simply
looks at Spam filtering effectiveness in terms of how much SPAM it prevents
from being delivered, and thinks that if some real e-mail gets lost in the
friendly fire the sender is to blame.
Apart from in technical groups as this, not one ever worries about lost
mail. Of course as a sender you can set up DKIM and SPF records, but then
so can the spammers.
So if you find e-mail to cctalk or cctech goes to your JUNK folder on
gmail create a filter to stop it...
... it much less effort than trying to fix google....
Dave
G4UGM
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk <cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org> On Behalf Of Peter Coghlan
via cctalk
Sent: 01 January 2021 13:44
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: Emails going to spam folder in gmail
Hi Mike,
Thanks for chiming in on this.
Disclaimer: I don't speak for Google ...
Large corporations (Google included) are
basically a scaling problem,
especially when it comes to customer service. I think that's pretty
obvious, and stories about YouTube problems and account access are
legion.
I don't have a solution that can be applied
to the problems on this
thread. My purpose in posting was to point out that this probably
isn't a matter of market share or people forgetting not to be evil;
it's a technical problem. Getting the configs right is the first step.
Blacklists are also a problem, and clearly sometimes the filters being
applied are wrong. We try to find and fix these things as they are
brought to our attention.
The big problem is bringing it to Google's attention.
It took me less than a minute of searching to find this:
https://support.google.com/mail/contact/bulk_send_new
That's the form to contact the Gmail team for getting help with
debugging your mail being marked as spam/phishing attempts, you get
SMTP temp-fails or rejects, or other problems. (The search term was
"problems sending email to gmail accounts" - go to the first link,
follow the workflow, and assuming all of the preliminary answers to
the questions are "I didn't do anything wrong" then you'll get a link
to that contact form.)
I spent hours over days looking for something like this (using Google
searches) and I failed to find it. I always ended up in blind alleys
that
assumed I was a Google customer trying to get an
email into my mailbox,
not
a correspondant of a Google customer trying to
get an email out.
My issue with Google and evil is that they provide no way that I can
find to
bring abuse of Google facilites (to send spam for
example) to their
attention
so that the abuse can be stopped. For example,
someone has been testing
my mail server to see if it can be used to relay spam by forging emails
as
coming from various email addresses in my domain
name and addressed to
check212014 at
gmail.com and attempting to feed these emails into my mail
server (which doesn't accept them) from compromised ip addresses. This
has happened nearly two hundred times over a period of five years now. I
have made numerous attempts to bring this to the attention of Google so
that they could put a stop to this check212014 mailbox being used for
this
abusive purpose yet I have failed. You seem to
have the magic touch.
Can
you let me know how to bring this to Google's
attention?
(By the way, this doesn't tend to happen with
hotmail.com addresses to
pick
one example. The reason it doesn't is
because on the rare occasions
when it
does, reporting the issue to hotmail or whoever
using the standard, easy
to
find abuse reporting mechanisms results in the
problem being stopped and
the spammer soon gets fed up having to set up new testing mailboxes every
few days so they end up moving over to
gmail.com instead where they can
keep the same relay testing mailbox for at least 5 years.)
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
>
> Mike
>