Emails going to spam folder in gmail

[Peter Coghlan]

Bill Degnan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 8:11 PM jim stephens via cctalk <
> cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > On 12/28/2020 2:25 PM, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
> > > On Mon, 28 Dec 2020 at 23:12, Bill Degnan via cctalk
> > > <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >> I have noticed the same email addresses' messages routinely end up in
> > the
> > >> spam folder of gmail.
> > > I have 2 nested folders (labels/tags/whatever) in Gmail:
> > > classiccmp/talk and classiccmp/tech. In my rule which filters messages
> > > into those folders, I ticked the box that says never to send messages
> > > matching the filter to spam.
> > >
> > > Problem solved.
> > >
> > Googles filters are garbage.  Problem not solved.  I still get plenty of
> > spam markings by Google with the headers or something about the traffic.
> >
> > I get multiple messages that fail the filter rule (same as yours) which
> > stay in the inbox as well.
> >
> > The only filtering system that's worked (so far) is the one in
> > Thunderbird.  Also with the flow into Thunderbird, I don't use any spam
> > filters, and never see any cctalk/tech messages left behind.
> >
> > Useless data, in early days when there was unlimited email storage I
> > thought I'd be clever and subscribe on both my gmail account and my
> > personal alias for cctalk.  Didn't work out that way because so much
> > screwing up by google.
> >
> > thanks
> > Jim
> >
> 
> I do this for a living so I am speaking professionally here.  It's not
> about filters it's about server to server authentication.  There is a best
> practice for "mail serving" authentication, DNS, encryption and the like.
> The old days when messages were simply scanned for spam phrases is long
> over.  The greylisting and all that is old fashioned.  If your mail server
> does not follow the modern best practices your message will accumulate
> enough strikes against it to cause it to be marked as spam. On the
> receiving end one can filter messages "out of spam" but that's an after the
> fact local software thing..  It does not solve the reason / issue causing
> the need to have filters in the first place.   This is why fewer and fewer
> private mail servers are still running.  They can't keep up with all of the
> required protocols.  It's a bummer but it's the way it is.  The
> commercialization of the web is a done deal.
> Bill
> 

Bill, I used to do this stuff for a living until about ten years ago.  A lot
has changed since then.  However, my experience as a small mailserver operator
now is that few have problems getting mail from me except users of Google
mail services.

The big problem with Google is for someone whose business is communications,
they just don't want to be communicated with.  They don't want to know about
faults with any of their services.  They don't want to know about anyone
abusing their services to send spam or to enable spam and they don't do
anything about it unless their automated system detects it.  Rogue ISPs
have increasingly cottoned on to this and an increasing number of them use
Google mail services or in some cases just plain gmail.com mailboxes for the
abuse addresses they have to register in ARIN/RIPE/APNIC etc.  Then they
can ignore the incoming abuse reports forevermore while their corporate
mail system chuggs along nicely without getting flooded by them.  Better
still, they can flag all their incoming abuse reports as spam to Google who
will eventually decide the senders are actually sending spams, not genuine
abuse reports and guess what happens next?

Ever tried to phone Google?  You end up in a voice mail jail that asks you in
intricate detail what you want to talk to them about and then directs you
to some useless web forum where people are talking among themselves about the
problems they are having with Google.  Unless you are calling Google to spend
money on advertising that is.  I don't know what happens in that case.

Google need to review their motto and start living by it.

Regards,
Peter Coghlan.