|
FastMail Forum All posts relating to FastMail.FM should go here: suggestions, comments, requests for help, complaints, technical issues etc. |
|
Thread Tools |
11 May 2017, 12:25 AM | #31 | |
Essential Contributor
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 371
|
Quote:
In short, there's a good chance that using a "reject" rule in a FastMail sieve script will have zero impact on the amount of spam you receive. While it would be great if FastMail implemented session-level SMTP rejection (e.g. don't even accept a rejected message in the first place), there's a fair bit of complexity in handling this, technically as well as philosophically (e.g. how do you handle a single message that comes in for multiple recipients who have different rules in their individual Sieve scripts?). So, what we're left with is a bounced non-delivery notification — a new e-mail that gets sent out to the offending address — and there are at least two problems with this approach that result in it having basically no effect on spammers...
|
|
11 May 2017, 01:01 AM | #32 |
Essential Contributor
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Dover, NH, USA
Posts: 315
|
;_;
ooh well.. |
11 May 2017, 03:17 AM | #33 |
Intergalactic Postmaster
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Irving, Texas
Posts: 8,917
|
Be sure to read:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_job You don't want to quickly assume that a spam message was actually sent by the normal visible From address or the Reply-To header address, since those are extremely easy to forge. Bill |
11 May 2017, 06:47 AM | #34 |
Master of the @
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: USA
Posts: 1,683
|
I know this is an FM forum, but use Gmail to read your FM mail and they will take care of most of the spam. Report the occasional spam message that gets through to Gmail and you generally will not be bothered again. Whatever else you think about Gmail, they have the best spam filtering in the business, with the fewest false positives too.
|
14 May 2017, 02:09 PM | #35 |
Intergalactic Postmaster
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Irving, Texas
Posts: 8,917
|
Fastmail staff (Rob M) says they a patch to fix the sieve reject bug which will be rolling out soon (if it isn't already in place). I haven't had time to test it yet.
Bill |
14 May 2017, 04:44 PM | #36 |
The "e" in e-mail
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: VK4
Posts: 2,995
|
No its still showing my main log in mail address.
But Fastmail have been and will be very busy with the Big move. |
15 May 2017, 01:55 PM | #37 |
The "e" in e-mail
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,458
|
Following. Hope to hear this is fixed soon. I do still use this (with a small fraction of the messages I don't accept).
|
16 May 2017, 01:42 PM | #38 |
The "e" in e-mail
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,696
Representative of:
Fastmail.fm |
We tested the fix getting Postfix to bounce it, and the internal username was leaking out, so we wound up patching Cyrus with a configuration option to revert back to the old behaviour of generating its own bounce messages.
|
16 May 2017, 03:22 PM | #39 |
The "e" in e-mail
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: VK4
Posts: 2,995
|
Thank you brong....Excellent service as usual....
We do appreciate all the time and trouble you have spent on this. |
16 May 2017, 11:46 PM | #40 |
Essential Contributor
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 371
|
Definitely working instantaneously now, but it's very important to note that the new behaviour will definitely not imply an invalid address. Since it's Cyrus bouncing the e-mail and not Postfix, it's not an SMTP-type bounce at all, but rather a message that explicitly says:
Code:
Your message was automatically rejected by Sieve, a mail filtering language. The following reason was given: (your reject rule string goes here) That said, I suppose you could put something like "This mailbox doesn't exist" as the string in your "reject" rule, which might fool some people.... |
17 May 2017, 01:29 AM | #41 |
Cornerstone of the Community
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Rupert, WV
Posts: 876
|
|
17 May 2017, 01:34 AM | #42 | |
Essential Contributor
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 371
|
Quote:
In my experience, the only thing that works with (some) spammers is an actual SMTP-level rejection that refuses to accept the mail in the first place. Most bounce messages won't go back to a valid address anyway, and even if they do, it's rare that any spammer is going to take the trouble to go through an inbox and process non-delivery notifications. |
|
17 May 2017, 11:43 AM | #43 |
Intergalactic Postmaster
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Irving, Texas
Posts: 8,917
|
My guess is that it's an automated process. The spammer dumps a file of email addresses they purchased into a tool they purchased and it kicks out spam. The ideal situation for them is when the return message goes somewhere else and doesn't bother them. Why pay for an incoming email account? My guess is that the spam and phishing we get is composed of:
Bill |
17 May 2017, 12:22 PM | #44 | |
Essential Contributor
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 371
|
Quote:
However, in the modern Internet era, I'm not really sure how many spammers even care about "quality" email address lists any more, so even outright "invalid address" errors on delivery probably don't do much to discourage spam. |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|