Google is amazing

[juan]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 12:34:18 -0700
Sean Lynch <seanl at literati.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 1:46 PM, juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 17:47:42 +0000
> > Sean Lynch <seanl at 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?