jsinaiko
Premium
join:2001-04-25
Chicago, IL
 ·AT&T Midwest
| reply to nwrickert
Re: Where did my spam go?
OK, believe that it is conspiracy. And keep on posting in boldface. That will certainly cause AT&T to respond.
You keep on saying that a major change has occurred because they are now "massively blocking spam."
Exactly what do you think they were doing before? Ignoring spam? Please.
And also, do you believe that there are both ATT and Yahoo filters? I don't think so. It is all Yahoo.
If you think there is some sort of change involving "massively blocking spam" it might be helpful if you explained exactly what you think this change entails.
I'm no huge fan of ATT but you aren't making much sense. Of course there is a filter to set. You can either have all mail that is labeled "spam" deleted upon its arrival or you can have it put into the spam folder - this is right in the options section of the webmail interface. If it is put into the spam folder you won't lose it - you just have to check the folder before you delete its contents. Not rocket science. This isn't about my "denial."
--
Illegitimati non carborundum
|
|
nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| OK, believe that it is conspiracy. Where did I say anything about conspiracy?
You keep on saying that a major change has occurred because they are now "massively blocking spam." Yes. I'm sorry to see that you are still in denial about this.
Exactly what do you think they were doing before? Ignoring spam? Please. Some spam was being rejected by AT&T, with the use of block lists. But, mostly, mail recognized as spam was being put in the bulk folder.
And also, do you believe that there are both ATT and Yahoo filters? If you have paid attention to this forum, there are occasional threads about mail being blocked by AT&T. In the past, most of the filtering has been done by Yahoo but with some blocking by AT&T.
But now we have a change. I cannot tell where the change is.
Mail to my 'ameritech.net' address comes initially to an AT&T managed server. From there it is passed along to Yahoo. So both AT&T and Yahoo have opportunities to filter/block the email to prevent me from seeing it. I don't know which one of then has made a major change. Whichever it is, I think we should have been informed.
Sure, it is also possible that the spammers have conspired to boycott AT&T, and stop sending spam to AT&T users. But I discount that as highly unlikely.
If you think there is some sort of change involving "massively blocking spam" it might be helpful if you explained exactly what you think this change entails. If I knew what had changed, I wouldn't be asking here.
I'm no huge fan of ATT but you aren't making much sense. Of course there is a filter to set. Oh s**t. Do I have to go through this again? Can you try thinking this through before giving me the third degree?
I have already made clear that I was previously getting 70-80 spam per day. I would not be getting that if I had set the Yahoo spam filter to delete spam on arrival. I have it set to put spam in the bulk folder, and retain for 30 days. My bulk folder size has been consistently between 2200 and 3000 messages for some time. Since Monday, I have received only one nor two bulk messages per day.
I repeat, whatever has changed, it isn't any filter that I have any control over. It is happening somewhere in the deep recesses of AT&T or Yahoo. And we haven't been told about it.
And keep on posting in boldface. That will certainly cause AT&T to respond. I am using bold face to try getting it through to you. I don't know why you are still in denial about this.
--
AT&T dsl; Westell 327w modem/router; SuSE 10.1; firefox 2.0.0.12 |
|
jsinaiko
Premium
join:2001-04-25
Chicago, IL | I'm though. Bye. |
|
StillLearn
Premium
join:2002-03-21
Streamwood, IL
·AT&T Midwest
1 edit | reply to Lizz
said by Lizz  :No way would I ever think of waiting 29 days to check my bulk folder. There would have been 1,000+ spam messages and probably 20 or so non-spam emails. I have always checked the bulk folder each and EVERY time I checked for "real" email!! It would have been nice if my "missing support email" had even made it to my bulk folder. It got blocked long before that. I can deal with spam; I canNOT deal with not receiving critical email. I suggest you create a AddressGuard address for your critical email sender to use. When you create it, I would toggle each of the three choices that are presented during creation from their defaults.
Options:
•[x]Allow messages to be sent from this address
•[ ]Use Filters [What's this?]
•[ ]Use SpamGuard Plus
I believe that should turn off filtering for mail coming into that address only. |
|
Lizz
Premium
join:2002-10-22
Fullerton, CA
| Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately, none of those things are any help whatsoever if legitimate email is blocked at either an ATT or Yahoo server and never gets to you in the first place . . . which is exactly what I've been talking about.
To make it perfectly clear: I know for a fact a specific email was sent twice and neither one ever appeared in any of my email-type folders. |
|
dxiv
join:2005-04-12
Wheaton, IL
| reply to nwrickert
Count me among those a bit concerned, too. I have my filter set to deliver all email, and just mark spam as "[bulk]", which helped me catch quite a few false positives over time.
In the past few days, the bulk email went down about 10-fold. Since this appears to be specific to att/yahoo, I assume that the volume of spam didn't suddenly dry out. Which means that I am no longer getting some emails which I used to, and the "[bulk]" filter no longer does what it says it does i.e. deliver it all. I'd feel better if (a) there was an official word about this, and (b) a description of what the "[bulk]" option means nowadays.
To be clear, I hate spam as much as anyone. But I don't fully trust the filters, either, however well intentioned they might be. The day after this new filtering started, for example, I had two perfectly legit emails delivered as "[bulk]" - an account notification from discovercard.com, and on order pickup from walmart.com. Given the total spam for that day was a whopping 6 emails, that amounts to a 33% false positive rate. Not exactly a confidence builder.
I would also much appreciate if the att/yahoo co-op (and responsibilities) were made clear once and for all. It's simply not true that there is only one point of filtering. I have a yahoo.com address associated with my primary ameritech.net account. It happened for me to get the same email sent to both addresses coming clean from yahoo, but marked as bulk from ameritech. And I am not talking similar, or identical emails - but the exact one and only email sent to both my addresses in the "to" line. |
|
StillLearn
Premium
join:2002-03-21
Streamwood, IL
2 edits | reply to Lizz
Suggesting a solution/workaround may have been off topic. |
|
nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to Lizz
Unfortunately, none of those things are any help whatsoever if legitimate email is blocked at either an ATT or Yahoo server and never gets to you in the first place . If the blocking is being done by Yahoo, then nothing helps. If it is AT&T doing the new blocking, then use of an AddressGuard address will help, because that will be a pure Yahoo address and won't go through AT&T servers.
That's one of the reason's I would like to know whether the change is at AT&T servers or at Yahoo servers.
--
AT&T dsl; Westell 327w modem/router; SuSE 10.1; firefox 2.0.0.12 |
|
Lizz
Premium
join:2002-10-22
Fullerton, CA
| But that's almost the equivalent of a changing your email address, and if I'm going to do that, I'm going to REALLY, REALLY change it where it wouldn't have anything to do with either ATT or Yahoo!
I do have an AddressGuard address, but that's used as a "spam collector" but it never really got that much, so it's not a fair test either as to whether it's ATT or Yahoo or both. |
|
nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| But that's almost the equivalent of a changing your email address, and if I'm going to do that, I'm going to REALLY, REALLY change it where it wouldn't have anything to do with either ATT or Yahoo! Yes, that's my attitude too. Might be worth looking into email providers, or registering one's own email domain that could be moved between providers if that becomes necessary.
--
AT&T dsl; Westell 327w modem/router; SuSE 10.1; firefox 2.0.0.12 |
|
Lizz
Premium
join:2002-10-22
Fullerton, CA | When I finally get up with my new web host, that just may happen! Gotta check out their reliability first, but I doubt they could be much worse that what I've got now  |
|
pcasher
join:2005-07-18
Round Lake, IL | I'm glad it's gone. I've been religiously reporting each piece of spam to spam@uce.gov . Now I can give my fingers a rest. |
|
DudeMON
@sbcglobal.net
| reply to nwrickert
I am having the same problem with not receiving spam. Saw this posted on another site as well. Seems strange there would not be more information on this. Like others, I was receiving about 100 emails in my bulk folder, now only a handful. I think a couple "good emails" are also getting blocked - but don't know how to validate. |
|
nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to nwrickert
Some more information has been added to other related threads:
»Email Problems?
»Has AT&T and/or Yahoo started filtering Spam?
»AT&T abuse block 550
In particular, this post seems to imply that the new filtering is being done at AT&T, not at Yahoo. For now, I would take that as a tentative conclusion, subject to later revision if new evidence warrants that.
--
AT&T dsl; Westell 327w modem/router; SuSE 10.1; firefox 2.0.0.12 |
|
Old_Grouch
Don't just sit there silly DO something
Premium
join:2004-05-26
Greenwood, IN
clubs: | I now have people getting mail from me marked as suspected SPAM.
Our collective reputations are ruined. Guess I might as well go mess around with those deadly sins  |
|
Lizz
Premium
join:2002-10-22
Fullerton, CA
| reply to nwrickert
Here's the error message a friend received (she did finally get a couple of emails through to me):
- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
(reason: 554 Message not allowed - UP Email not accepted for policy reasons. Please visit »help.yahoo.com/help/us/mail/defe···tml[120])
----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to mx1.sbc.mail.yahoo.com.:
>>> >>> DATA
>>>
554 Message not allowed - UP Email not accepted for policy reasons. Please visit »help.yahoo.com/help/us/mail/defe···tml[120]
554 5.0.0 Service unavailable |
|
justbits
More fiber than ATT can handle
Premium
join:2003-01-08
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| »help.yahoo.com/help/us/mail/defe···-04.html
forwards to:
»help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/p···-27.html
which describes a way to send feedback back to Yahoo about the problem. |
|
Lizz
Premium
join:2002-10-22
Fullerton, CA | Right. So it appears Yahoo is definitely involved in this. |
|
nwrickert
sand groper
Premium,MVM
join:2004-09-04
Geneva, IL
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to Lizz
554 Message not allowed - UP Email not accepted for policy reasons. Yes, that's a Yahoo message.
I see that mainly for phish email. Perhaps Yahoo has something mistuned.
I am currently administering our department mail server, and one person forwards mail to Yahoo for reading. That is the message from forwarding phish. Most forwarded spam goes through, perhaps a few are rejected with the above message.
--
AT&T dsl; Westell 327w modem/router; SuSE 10.1; firefox 2.0.0.12 |
|
IAmNotHe
@talisentech.com
| reply to nwrickert
I think AT&T and Yahoo BOTH sent an email out about the new Spam filters but reports claim that the new filters actually blocked and deleted the email before it ever reached any customer's email accounts.  |
|
