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.
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. Then google will know the list mail is VERY important to you. Rr
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.
Rr
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.
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 Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 20:13 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
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.
On 09/13/2016 10:47 AM, Sean Lynch wrote:
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.
Or you could set the filter to mark all from "Cypher Piggie" as spam instead. At least I think this is possible. Currently all I use Gmail for is newsletters. Rr
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 Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 20:13 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net <mailto:rayzer@riseup.net>> wrote:
On 09/12/2016 08:00 PM, juan wrote: > On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 19:40:00 -0700 > Razer <rayzer@riseup.net <mailto: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.
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 17:47:42 +0000 Sean Lynch <seanl@literati.org> wrote:
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.
So apparently the system ignores the fact that messages come from a mailing list, and treats them as if they came directly from the original sender's address. And then wrongly marks some as spam. So it's doing it wrongly, twice. Adding a rule to stop it filtering messages with trait 'comes-from-cypher-whatever' works, but it seems to be slightly misaligned with the modern philosophy of "automatic system built for retards, I mean, for Important People Too Busy To Learn Anything".
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 Mon, Sep 12, 2016, 20:13 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 1:46 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 17:47:42 +0000 Sean Lynch <seanl@literati.org> wrote:
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.
So apparently the system ignores the fact that messages come from a mailing list, and treats them as if they came directly from the original sender's address. And then wrongly marks some as spam. So it's doing it wrongly, twice.
I'm not sure how manually blocking based on mailing list headers makes any sense. And there are plenty of mailing lists that get lots of spam. This used to be how cpunks worked when it was distributed, as has been discussed here recently. The end user was expected to run a spam filter against the list, subscribe to a filtered mirror, or just put up with it.
Adding a rule to stop it filtering messages with trait 'comes-from-cypher-whatever' works, but it seems to be slightly misaligned with the modern philosophy of "automatic system built for retards, I mean, for Important People Too Busy To Learn Anything".
Well, the "retards" probably aren't going to care much about a few mailing list messages being sent to their spam folder erroneously. I can't say I've actually cared about any of the messages that got sent to spam, I'm just pedantic about such things. Today, though, the only "false positive" was someone I would have blocked anyway. So is it really a false positive?
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 12:34:18 -0700 Sean Lynch <seanl@literati.org> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 1:46 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 17:47:42 +0000 Sean Lynch <seanl@literati.org> wrote:
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.
So apparently the system ignores the fact that messages come from a mailing list, and treats them as if they came directly from the original sender's address. And then wrongly marks some as spam. So it's doing it wrongly, twice.
I'm not sure how manually blocking based on mailing list headers makes any sense.
No, blocking doesn't make sense. What makes sense is whitelisting =P - I mean, if the list is already filtered, what's the point of gmail filtering it again?
And there are plenty of mailing lists that get lots of spam. This used to be how cpunks worked when it was distributed,
And in that case gmail's default behaviour makes sense. But for what it's worth most if not all lists I've been subscribed to have been filtered at the list's server.
as has been discussed here recently. The end user was expected to run a spam filter against the list, subscribe to a filtered mirror, or just put up with it.
Fair enough.
Adding a rule to stop it filtering messages with trait 'comes-from-cypher-whatever' works, but it seems to be slightly misaligned with the modern philosophy of "automatic system built for retards, I mean, for Important People Too Busy To Learn Anything".
Well, the "retards" probably aren't going to care much about a few mailing list messages being sent to their spam folder erroneously.
Haha! You have a point...
I can't say I've actually cared about any of the messages that got sent to spam, I'm just pedantic about such things. Today, though, the only "false positive" was someone I would have blocked anyway. So is it really a false positive?
participants (3)
-
juan -
Razer -
Sean Lynch