Having used both Gmail and SpamAssassin for filtering mail to this address, which I've had since 1996, I've found SpamAssassin to be vastly superior in terms of false positives. Gmail doesn't seem to be that much better in terms of false negatives even. Pretty disappointing.
I used to have a filter that prevented Gmail from marking cpunks mail as spam, but I have intentionally avoided fixing that since the list address changed in hopes of training it not to suck so bad. So far I don't seem to have had much luck.
One thing I did notice is that by default when you block a sender on Gmail it sends their messages to the spam folder instead of deleting them, which could mean its training the spam filter on them as well. If a lot of people do that, it could cause the spam filter to think other cpunks messages are also spam instead of just, say, Cypher Piggie's.
The solution for me is going to be to stop using Gmail once I find the time to set up my scandalous basement server. The easier solution is just to set up a filter with "never mark as spam" as someone else suggested whom I would credit by name were I not typing this on my phone in the bathroom.
On 09/12/2016 08:00 PM, juan wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 19:40:00 -0700
> Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 09/12/2016 01:36 PM, juan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> It is marking something like 50% of the list's posts as
>>> spam and so forcing me to log into their shitty web interface. It is
>>> really amazing that the masters of the universe can't get a
>>> fucking spam filter working.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Whah! Whah!
>>
>> Make a filter so that anything from the list never gets marked as
>> junk.
>
>
> Yeah. I think that 'feature' didn't exist a while back, but Zen
> just told me about it.
>
>
>> Then google will know the list mail is VERY important to you.
>
> ^-^
>
>
> Here's another way in which google is amazing. If I try to log
> with JS disabled, their shitty 'security' system will be
> triggered. They can't even put a note explaining that they
> want you to turn JS on.
>
>
You can still use the old html type page ("If you have a slow
connection") I don't think it requires Jscript to function correctly at
the client but I'm sure the page is loaded with it anyway so the server
can note which ads your mouse.hover-s over etc.