You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by John <jp...@codemist.co.uk> on 2020/10/24 19:30:48 UTC
What can one do abut outlook.com?
A regular source of spam is outlook.com; or at least that is the
domain that delivered the junk to my domain. I am tempted to block
them but a number of universities with whom I have connections seem to
have outsourced mailing to outlook. I complain regularly (daily) but
all I ever see as a result is a standard "We got your mail" and
pointing me to a web page if I need more help; said page assumes the
reader is inside outlook and getting mail from outside.
What do people do about them? Do I lie and say I trust them? or
should I just continue to block parts of their spam-network? I cannot
be the only one with this problem!
==John ffitch
RE: What can one do abut outlook.com?
Posted by Marc Roos <M....@f1-outsourcing.eu>.
That is why it is important to read and use the brain, otherwise you
wander of the subject.
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2020 4:48 PM
To: John Wilcock
Cc: users
Subject: Re: What can one do abut outlook.com?
Lets remember youre arguing with someone who clearly doesnt run
any sort of commercial email system because no sane person selling boxes
can simply block outlook...
On Oct 26, 2020, at 5:44 AM, John Wilcock <jo...@wilcock.fr> wrote:
The problem with your analogy is that you are not just interacting
with one unwelcome neighbour with a defective washing machine, but with
dozens of neighbours whose washing machines work perfectly but who
happen to share the same plumber as the unwelcome one. And in many cases
these people aren't just your neighbours but potential clients of yours.
If you refuse to deal with them on the basis that they use that plumber,
you're the one who will lose business.
I'm not sure the analogy works all that well, but hopefully you get
my point. Outlook.com, Google and Amazon all have millions of legitimate
customers from whom you might receive genuine email, and if you block
them because of their (relatively few) unwelcome customers, you're
throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
--
John
On 2020-10-25 18:48, Marc Roos wrote:
Are you guys working for Google or Amazon or so? Maybe I
should give
something simple analogy so you understand.
If your neighbours washing machine breaks down, and causes you
water
damage. They have to pay for cleaning up de mess they created
in your
apartment. If the neighbour spills oil on your parkway, they
have to
clean it up.
Your reasoning resembles:
- the neighbour does have to use their washing machine every
time, so I
will just clean up their mess every time.
- it is only once of every 3 times the neighbour uses his
washing
machine, he floods my apartment, so that is ok.
- the neighbour has kids, they cannot be held responsible for
dad to
flood my apartment every week. So I will not ask the landlord
to evict
them. I will just clean up their mess every week year after
year.
- the neighbour floods my apartment every week, I think I will
teach him
this week how to use the washing machine.
- the neighbour floods my apartment every week, I think I will
replace
my wooden floor for some plastic foil.
Re: What can one do abut outlook.com?
Posted by Charles Sprickman <sp...@bway.net>.
Let’s remember you’re arguing with someone who clearly doesn’t run any sort of commercial email system because no sane person selling boxes can simply block outlook...
> On Oct 26, 2020, at 5:44 AM, John Wilcock <jo...@wilcock.fr> wrote:
>
> The problem with your analogy is that you are not just interacting with one unwelcome neighbour with a defective washing machine, but with dozens of neighbours whose washing machines work perfectly but who happen to share the same plumber as the unwelcome one. And in many cases these people aren't just your neighbours but potential clients of yours. If you refuse to deal with them on the basis that they use that plumber, you're the one who will lose business.
>
> I'm not sure the analogy works all that well, but hopefully you get my point. Outlook.com, Google and Amazon all have millions of legitimate customers from whom you might receive genuine email, and if you block them because of their (relatively few) unwelcome customers, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
>
> --
> John
>
>
> On 2020-10-25 18:48, Marc Roos wrote:
>
>>
>> Are you guys working for Google or Amazon or so? Maybe I should give
>> something simple analogy so you understand.
>>
>> If your neighbours washing machine breaks down, and causes you water
>> damage. They have to pay for cleaning up de mess they created in your
>> apartment. If the neighbour spills oil on your parkway, they have to
>> clean it up.
>>
>>
>> Your reasoning resembles:
>>
>> - the neighbour does have to use their washing machine every time, so I
>> will just clean up their mess every time.
>> - it is only once of every 3 times the neighbour uses his washing
>> machine, he floods my apartment, so that is ok.
>> - the neighbour has kids, they cannot be held responsible for dad to
>> flood my apartment every week. So I will not ask the landlord to evict
>> them. I will just clean up their mess every week year after year.
>> - the neighbour floods my apartment every week, I think I will teach him
>> this week how to use the washing machine.
>> - the neighbour floods my apartment every week, I think I will replace
>> my wooden floor for some plastic foil.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
RE: What can one do abut outlook.com?
Posted by Marc Roos <M....@f1-outsourcing.eu>.
> The problem with your analogy is that you are not just interacting
with one unwelcome neighbour with a defective washing machine,
> but with dozens of neighbours whose washing machines work perfectly
but who happen to share the same plumber as the unwelcome one.
I think you prove yourself to be wrong, because later you just write
Google, Outlook and Amazon and not company A, company B, company XX.
Everyone is in the same appartment.
> And in many cases these people aren't just your neighbours but
potential clients of yours. If you refuse to deal
> with them on the basis that they use that plumber, you're the one who
will lose business.
That is beside the point. But I agree, it does complicate executing this
point of view. That is why I think that big companies are not good in
general.
>I'm not sure the analogy works all that well, but hopefully you get my
point.
> Outlook.com, Google and Amazon all have millions
> of legitimate customers from whom you might receive genuine email, and
if you block them because of their (relatively few)
> unwelcome customers, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
To me it is very simple. An ip address gets blocked when it sends out
spam/phising/abuse etc. I assume you have also been using dns blacklists
to reject email. This has been a very old practice. If google sends
messages from a legitimate client via the same ip, as that of a spammer.
That is googles responsibility, so this legitimate clients should
complain to google.
If google supplies me with software, that will block spam from such an
ip and let through legitimate email from the same ip (or pays someone to
sit in my office to do it for them). I will be the first to use it.
Re: What can one do abut outlook.com?
Posted by John Wilcock <jo...@wilcock.fr>.
The problem with your analogy is that you are not just interacting with
one unwelcome neighbour with a defective washing machine, but with
dozens of neighbours whose washing machines work perfectly but who
happen to share the same plumber as the unwelcome one. And in many cases
these people aren't just your neighbours but potential clients of yours.
If you refuse to deal with them on the basis that they use that plumber,
you're the one who will lose business.
I'm not sure the analogy works all that well, but hopefully you get my
point. Outlook.com, Google and Amazon all have millions of legitimate
customers from whom you might receive genuine email, and if you block
them because of their (relatively few) unwelcome customers, you're
throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
--
John
On 2020-10-25 18:48, Marc Roos wrote:
> Are you guys working for Google or Amazon or so? Maybe I should give
> something simple analogy so you understand.
>
> If your neighbours washing machine breaks down, and causes you water
> damage. They have to pay for cleaning up de mess they created in your
> apartment. If the neighbour spills oil on your parkway, they have to
> clean it up.
>
> Your reasoning resembles:
>
> - the neighbour does have to use their washing machine every time, so I
> will just clean up their mess every time.
> - it is only once of every 3 times the neighbour uses his washing
> machine, he floods my apartment, so that is ok.
> - the neighbour has kids, they cannot be held responsible for dad to
> flood my apartment every week. So I will not ask the landlord to evict
> them. I will just clean up their mess every week year after year.
> - the neighbour floods my apartment every week, I think I will teach
> him
> this week how to use the washing machine.
> - the neighbour floods my apartment every week, I think I will replace
> my wooden floor for some plastic foil.
RE: What can one do abut outlook.com?
Posted by Marc Roos <M....@f1-outsourcing.eu>.
Are you guys working for Google or Amazon or so? Maybe I should give
something simple analogy so you understand.
If your neighbours washing machine breaks down, and causes you water
damage. They have to pay for cleaning up de mess they created in your
apartment. If the neighbour spills oil on your parkway, they have to
clean it up.
Your reasoning resembles:
- the neighbour does have to use their washing machine every time, so I
will just clean up their mess every time.
- it is only once of every 3 times the neighbour uses his washing
machine, he floods my apartment, so that is ok.
- the neighbour has kids, they cannot be held responsible for dad to
flood my apartment every week. So I will not ask the landlord to evict
them. I will just clean up their mess every week year after year.
- the neighbour floods my apartment every week, I think I will teach him
this week how to use the washing machine.
- the neighbour floods my apartment every week, I think I will replace
my wooden floor for some plastic foil.
Re: What can one do abut outlook.com?
Posted by Antony Stone <An...@spamassassin.open.source.it>.
On Sunday 25 October 2020 at 17:05:26, Marc Roos wrote:
> Google, Amazon and Microsoft have billions of cash. It is indeed a
> wonder how they are not spending it on outgoing mail detection.
Why do they need to?
Customers use their services anyway, and are either:
a) spammers, in which case they're happy that the above does not happen, or
b) non-spammers, in which case they don't really care whether their outbound
email is filtered, so long as it gets delivered.
In the (b) case, if there *were* filtering, any false positives (ie: legitimate
emails which got blocked) would harm the provider's reputation and customer
satisfaction.
Also in the (b) case, anyone who blocks email from the provider is "obviously"
causing the problem themselves, and therefore doing themselves harm.
> Nobody was saying so. Best is to block just the ip addresses that your
> receive spam from.
How does that help? Those providers don't set up different IP addresses for
email from different customers. Everyone's email (spammers and non-spammers)
gets processed by the entire farm of outbound MTAs.
> if their ip addresses a randomly blocked by many other providers. All their
> queues will start using more resources bouncing around mails,
I doubt that is much of a concern for these size organisations.
> having to explain to their clients why sometimes a mail is send and
> sometimes rejected,
Ha. I don't think their support staff extend to that level of assistance.
> costs increase, thus more incentive to kick out spammers or spend more
> on prevention.
No. Email is a cheap service to provide alongside all the other services
they're charging their customers the real money for,
> > If you block something, you have to ask yourself: How many innocent,
> > unsuspecting legitimate senders
>
> Who cares, these "unsuspecting legitimate senders" should take their
> business somewhere else.
I suspect you don't have any of them as customers. Telling them to change
their mail service provider is simply going to tell them to use another
organisation instead of yours. If you block their email you clearly don't
want to do business with them.
> > If you block even one innocent sender as collateral damage, you should
> > not block that email provider, regardless how annoying it is.
>
> What a non-sense. This is how spammers currently work, mix legitimate
> mail with spam. Just block ip's, it is not your fault they are sending
> you spam. Nobody can blame you, if you do not want to do the work that
> Amazon, Google and Microsoft should be doing.
Blocking IPs cannot work in a commercial environment (by which I mean, you
want to receive emails from legitimate enquireres for your commercial
services, or from existing customers).
Antony.
--
Atheism is a non-prophet-making organisation.
Please reply to the list;
please *don't* CC me.
Re: What can one do abut outlook.com?
Posted by Alex Woick <al...@wombaz.de>.
>> If you block something, you have to ask yourself: How many innocent,
>> unsuspecting legitimate senders
> Who cares, these "unsuspecting legitimate senders" should take their
> business somewhere else.
This is extremist. You are confusing offenders with victims. Fight
offenders, not victims. Every single rule in the default SpamAssassin
ruleset is targeted against offenders, not against victims. I propose
you keep it that way. If you start to block everything that once sent
spam, you end up blocking half of the internet. You have to accept this
is an ongoing war against spammers, and every time you add a new rule to
detect spam content, the spammers adapt and invent new ways to
circumvent. You cannot go further than dnsbl with their automated and
temporary blocks - if you start to block manually mail providers as some
answer suggested, this is usually a permanent block and from then on a
permanent nuisance for own customers who expect mail from outlook.com
users and a permanent nuisance for remote customers who chose
outlook.com as provider. A nuisance that is more severe than some
undetected spam mail. You forgot: spam detection by content still works.
Outlook.com is not on some whitelist.
RE: What can one do abut outlook.com?
Posted by Marc Roos <M....@f1-outsourcing.eu>.
> all huge mail providers with thousands/millions of customers, so there
> is no wonder there is spam included.
Google, Amazon and Microsoft have billions of cash. It is indeed a
wonder how they are not spending it on outgoing mail detection.
> mail services to a mono-culture of single huge providers, but you
cannot
> block them just for being huge providers.
Nobody was saying so. Best is to block just the ip addresses that your
receive spam from. Their network will reroute emails. But if their ip
addresses a randomly blocked by many other providers. All their queues
will start using more resources bouncing around mails, having to explain
to their clients why sometimes a mail is send and sometimes rejected,
costs increase, thus more incentive to kick out spammers or spend more
on prevention.
> If you block something, you have to ask yourself: How many innocent,
> unsuspecting legitimate senders
Who cares, these "unsuspecting legitimate senders" should take their
business somewhere else.
> I'm blocking as well as the spammers? If
> you block even one innocent sender as collateral damage, you should
not
> block that email provider, regardless how annoying it is.
What a non-sense. This is how spammers currently work, mix legitimate
mail with spam. Just block ip's, it is not your fault they are sending
you spam. Nobody can blame you, if you do not want to do the work that
Amazon, Google and Microsoft should be doing.
Re: What can one do abut outlook.com?
Posted by Alex Woick <al...@wombaz.de>.
> A regular source of spam is outlook.com; or at least that is the
> domain that delivered the junk to my domain.
Outlook.com is a legitimate email provider and not known for ignoring
reports. If you block outlook.com, you have to block google.com for the
same reason. And everything sent through amazon web services. These are
all huge mail providers with thousands/millions of customers, so there
is no wonder there is spam included.
For me, the regular SpamAssassin rules detect and classify spam sent
through outlook.com very good, so there it's no use of completely
blocking major mail providers. All this is the result of concentrating
mail services to a mono-culture of single huge providers, but you cannot
block them just for being huge providers.
If you block something, you have to ask yourself: How many innocent,
unsuspecting legitimate senders I'm blocking as well as the spammers? If
you block even one innocent sender as collateral damage, you should not
block that email provider, regardless how annoying it is. Instead, build
custom rules to filter the spam by text content.
Alex
Re: What can one do abut outlook.com?
Posted by John Capo <ap...@irbs.com>.
On Sat, October 24, 2020 16:33, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> John skrev den 2020-10-24 21:30:
>
>> A regular source of spam is outlook.com;
>>
>
> is spamassassin say is not spam ?
>
> in that case:
>
> blacklist_from *@outlook.com
>
> if it contains urls, is this urls unlisted ?
>
> i see low scooring spams aswell, and i add it to local rules to stop it
Spamassassin rules and scores from the Bogofilter bayes classifier works well against the kind of spam that I see from Outlook. I would think that the bayes classifier in Spamassassin would work well also.
John Capo
Re: What can one do abut outlook.com?
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu>.
John Hardin skrev den 2020-10-25 01:46:
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2020, Benny Pedersen wrote:
>
>> John skrev den 2020-10-24 21:30:
>>> A regular source of spam is outlook.com;
>>
>> is spamassassin say is not spam ?
>>
>> in that case:
>>
>> blacklist_from *@outlook.com
>
> ...and then whitelist specific desireable-correspondent outlook.com
> addresses.
or change scores for USER_IN_BLACKLIST to 5.0
i just try to keep it simple
Re: What can one do abut outlook.com?
Posted by Giovanni Bechis <gi...@paclan.it>.
Il 26 ottobre 2020 20:09:52 CET, Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu> ha scritto:
>Giovanni Bechis skrev den 2020-10-26 09:05:
>
>>> amavisd have penpal, if that is possible to track with TxRep ?
>> maybe something is doable by reading _TXREPEMAILCOUNT_ tag.
>
>with 3.4.4 it does not work, so is it trunk ?
TxRep tags are broken on 3.4.4, they have been fixed in trunk and 3.4 tree (available when 3.4.5 will be released).
Giovanni
Re: What can one do abut outlook.com?
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu>.
Giovanni Bechis skrev den 2020-10-26 09:05:
>> amavisd have penpal, if that is possible to track with TxRep ?
> maybe something is doable by reading _TXREPEMAILCOUNT_ tag.
with 3.4.4 it does not work, so is it trunk ?
Re: What can one do abut outlook.com?
Posted by Giovanni Bechis <gi...@paclan.it>.
On 10/25/20 7:12 PM, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> Bob Proulx skrev den 2020-10-25 19:08:
>
>>> I also have a tool for weeding undesirables from the correspondent list
>>> because spamming addresses can creep onto the list, but its very
>>> infrequently needed.
>>
>> It is a clever idea! I might add something similar to my own setup. :-)
>
> amavisd have penpal, if that is possible to track with TxRep ?
>
maybe something is doable by reading _TXREPEMAILCOUNT_ tag.
Giovanni
Re: What can one do abut outlook.com?
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu>.
Bob Proulx skrev den 2020-10-25 19:08:
>> I also have a tool for weeding undesirables from the correspondent
>> list
>> because spamming addresses can creep onto the list, but its very
>> infrequently needed.
>
> It is a clever idea! I might add something similar to my own setup.
> :-)
amavisd have penpal, if that is possible to track with TxRep ?
should spamassassin have seperate inbound and outbound tracking of
senders and recipient, does it scale ?, or is it only possible in glue
milters ?, open for debate
Re: What can one do abut outlook.com?
Posted by Martin Gregorie <ma...@gregorie.org>.
On Sun, 2020-10-25 at 12:08 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > I use this to send a copy of all outbound mail to a local mailbox.
> > Then periodically a cronjob scans and erases the mailbox content,
> > adding the To: address(es) to a list of correspondents. IME this is
> > safe because its quite unlikely that you'll ever need to blacklist
> > anybody you've sent mail to.
>
> Oh I wish that were true in general! I have one user that I help with
> email things and they like to respond to spammers. They shout, they
> rant, they rave. I guess it is a catharsis for them and they feel
> better afterward. I have not been able to convince them that this is
> a worthless thing to do in the best cases and a bad thing to do in the
> worse cases.
>
I didn't say it works in all cases! In my case it works just as I hoped
it would, but of course those with different mailstream content may not
find it so good.
If I was you I'd quietly point out to those you help that their rants
only amuse spammers if they take any notice at all, but sending them to
you as well pisses you off mightily since you can't do anything about
said spammers, so if they want help from you in future they'd better
stop copying yo in on their rants.
It would also be fairly easy to modify the auto-whitelister code to
auto-remove a spamming correspondent from the list. Or, being slightly
more friendly, datestamp the correspondent entry when a message from
them is spam. This would let your SA module:
a) avoid whitelisting them for, say, the next month after their last
spam.
b) or rather less friendly, send them a message each time you receive
spam from them saying you're ignoring the message because it was
spam.
> It is a clever idea! I might add something similar to my own setup.
> :-)
>
I'm pleased you like it.
Martin
Re: What can one do abut outlook.com?
Posted by Bob Proulx <bo...@proulx.com>.
Martin Gregorie wrote:
> Its easy enough to create a list all desirable correspondents, at least
> if your MTA has the equivalent of Postfix's 'always_bcc' directive.
>
> I use this to send a copy of all outbound mail to a local mailbox. Then
> periodically a cronjob scans and erases the mailbox content, adding the
> To: address(es) to a list of correspondents. IME this is safe because
> its quite unlikely that you'll ever need to blacklist anybody you've
> sent mail to.
Oh I wish that were true in general! I have one user that I help with
email things and they like to respond to spammers. They shout, they
rant, they rave. I guess it is a catharsis for them and they feel
better afterward. I have not been able to convince them that this is
a worthless thing to do in the best cases and a bad thing to do in the
worse cases.
> In my case I keep the correspondents list in a database. I use a custom
> Perl SA module to access the database and a CORRESPONDENTS_LIST rule to
> trigger it and add negative points to incoming mail email with a
> matching From: address.
>
> I also have a tool for weeding undesirables from the correspondent list
> because spamming addresses can creep onto the list, but its very
> infrequently needed.
It is a clever idea! I might add something similar to my own setup. :-)
Bob
Re: What can one do abut outlook.com?
Posted by Martin Gregorie <ma...@gregorie.org>.
On Sat, 2020-10-24 at 16:46 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> ...and then whitelist specific desireable-correspondent outlook.com
> addresses.
>
Its easy enough to create a list all desirable correspondents, at least
if your MTA has the equivalent of Postfix's 'always_bcc' directive.
I use this to send a copy of all outbound mail to a local mailbox. Then
periodically a cronjob scans and erases the mailbox content, adding the
To: address(es) to a list of correspondents. IME this is safe because
its quite unlikely that you'll ever need to blacklist anybody you've
sent mail to.
In my case I keep the correspondents list in a database. I use a custom
Perl SA module to access the database and a CORRESPONDENTS_LIST rule to
trigger it and add negative points to incoming mail email with a
matching From: address.
I also have a tool for weeding undesirables from the correspondent list
because spamming addresses can creep onto the list, but its very
infrequently needed.
Martin
Re: What can one do abut outlook.com?
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Sat, 24 Oct 2020, Benny Pedersen wrote:
> John skrev den 2020-10-24 21:30:
>> A regular source of spam is outlook.com;
>
> is spamassassin say is not spam ?
>
> in that case:
>
> blacklist_from *@outlook.com
...and then whitelist specific desireable-correspondent outlook.com
addresses.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Campuses today are a theatrical mashup of
1984 and Lord of the Flies, performed by people
who don't understand these references. -- David Burge
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 days until the Presidential Election
Re: What can one do abut outlook.com?
Posted by Benny Pedersen <me...@junc.eu>.
John skrev den 2020-10-24 21:30:
> A regular source of spam is outlook.com;
is spamassassin say is not spam ?
in that case:
blacklist_from *@outlook.com
if it contains urls, is this urls unlisted ?
i see low scooring spams aswell, and i add it to local rules to stop it
Re: What can one do abut outlook.com?
Posted by John Hardin <jh...@impsec.org>.
On Sun, 25 Oct 2020, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
> On 24.10.20 22:19, Juerg Reimann wrote:
>> This is what I did, it works a 100% :).
>>
>> outlook.com REJECT Too much spam from outlook.com, please use another
>> email service.
>
> OTOH, outlook.com responds mail sent to abuse@ address, assuring you it has
> been dealt with, while gmail does not.
>
> of course, I can't be sure if they really dealt with it (nor if gmail
> didn't).
For a data point on gmail/google:
I get quite a lot of 419 scam emails, many with @gmail.com contact
addresses. I report all of them.
One specific gmail contact address I have been seeing in 419 spams and
reporting to abuse@google.com (they discontinued abuse@gmail.com) since
June (5 months now).
I would assume that if the contact mailbox account had indeed been locked
by google, then the spammers would stop using it in their pitches - there
would be no way for them to reel in victims via that contact address.
The fact that after five months of reporting that contact address they are
still using it to lure victims strongly suggests to me that google is
ignoring such reports.
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bother," said Pooh as he struggled with /etc/sendmail.cf, "it never
does quite what I want. I wish Christopher Robin was here."
-- Peter da Silva in a.s.r
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
7 days until Daylight Saving Time ends in U.S. - Fall Back
Re: What can one do abut outlook.com?
Posted by Matus UHLAR - fantomas <uh...@fantomas.sk>.
On 24.10.20 22:19, Juerg Reimann wrote:
>This is what I did, it works a 100% :).
>
>outlook.com REJECT Too much spam from outlook.com, please use another email service.
OTOH, outlook.com responds mail sent to abuse@ address, assuring you it has
been dealt with, while gmail does not.
of course, I can't be sure if they really dealt with it (nor if gmail
didn't).
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John <jp...@codemist.co.uk>
>> Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2020 9:31 PM
>> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
>> Subject: What can one do abut outlook.com?
>>
>> A regular source of spam is outlook.com; or at least that is the
>> domain that delivered the junk to my domain. I am tempted to block
>> them but a number of universities with whom I have connections seem to
>> have outsourced mailing to outlook. I complain regularly (daily) but
>> all I ever see as a result is a standard "We got your mail" and
>> pointing me to a web page if I need more help; said page assumes the
>> reader is inside outlook and getting mail from outside.
>>
>> What do people do about them? Do I lie and say I trust them? or
>> should I just continue to block parts of their spam-network? I cannot
>> be the only one with this problem!
>>
>> ==John ffitch
>
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
I intend to live forever - so far so good.
RE: What can one do abut outlook.com?
Posted by Juerg Reimann <jr...@jworld.ch>.
This is what I did, it works a 100% :).
outlook.com REJECT Too much spam from outlook.com, please use another email service.
Juerg
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John <jp...@codemist.co.uk>
> Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2020 9:31 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: What can one do abut outlook.com?
>
> A regular source of spam is outlook.com; or at least that is the
> domain that delivered the junk to my domain. I am tempted to block
> them but a number of universities with whom I have connections seem to
> have outsourced mailing to outlook. I complain regularly (daily) but
> all I ever see as a result is a standard "We got your mail" and
> pointing me to a web page if I need more help; said page assumes the
> reader is inside outlook and getting mail from outside.
>
> What do people do about them? Do I lie and say I trust them? or
> should I just continue to block parts of their spam-network? I cannot
> be the only one with this problem!
>
> ==John ffitch