Why is this message in spam? Lots of messages from domain were identified as spam in the past.

[ComputerRepairTech]

This gmail feature they added is becoming a serious problem for me. Is it impacting you guys?

It only takes a small amount of people incorrectly reporting your emails as spam for the entire domain to be flagged and then no one receives the emails even forwarded mail through the domain is being flagged. I could create a filter to never send it to spam for myself but then I don't benefit from the spam filter anymore. I do not understand why they would do something so ridiculous, if I wanted to block an entire domain myself I would have created a filter to do it -_-.

 

[Sky-Knight]

You don't wind up on an SMTP blacklist for a "few" reported messages. You wind up there because you're doing something flat wrong.

SPF, DKIM, and DMARC are not optional.

https://mxtoolbox.com/blacklists.aspx

 

[britechguy]

No snark intended: Because that's the way it's being done, and not just by Google.

This was an issue with multiple e-mail service providers for a service, Groups.io, that is a combination e-mail list/online forum where I subscribe to multiple groups. People would be getting more messages than they wanted, which they could have controlled via deleting them, subscribing by digest, or having a no email subscription and reading online but many would just start hitting the "Spam" button in their e-mail/webmail clients for these messages. Little did they know that virtually all e-mail service providers now have email feedback loops where users marking messages as spam is used to update spam filters by the service provider. Users will now have to be "untrained" from thinking that hitting the spam marker is the same as deleting an e-mail message, which many seem to do, and to also learn that if they accidentally mark a message as spam they should unmark it, too.

Most providers have a mechanism you can use to request being whitelisted if you can show that you do not spam. Often you'll have to use it more than once if there are enough recipients who insist on marking a message (or messages) you've sent as spam. Giving recipients who no longer want your communications a way to opt-out, and honoring it, is now becoming an absolute necessity.

 

[britechguy]

You wind up there because you're doing something flat wrong.

All I can say, from observation of what has happened multiple times on Groups.io, which is a subscription-only service, is that this statement is wrong.

If there are enough people, and it is relatively few, who mark specific messages as spam rather than just deleting them, even if accidentally doing so, you can get blacklisted very, very easily.

 

[Larry Sabo]

So much of my mail ends up in gmail or hotmail spam folders, it's very frustrating. I'm going to make it standard practice to immediately phone customers to verify they received my mail, rather than wait a couple of days to do so. It's usually mail with an invoice or picture attached.

Most providers have a mechanism you can use to request being whitelisted if you can show that you do not spam.

That's kind of like proving you no longer beat your wife, when of course you never have.

 

[ComputerRepairTech]

You don't wind up on an SMTP blacklist for a "few" reported messages. You wind up there because you're doing something flat wrong.

SPF, DKIM, and DMARC are not optional.

https://mxtoolbox.com/blacklists.aspx

I am not on any blacklists, this is just something gmail is doing. hmm maybe I forgot to add dmarc when I changed dns providers, i wonder if thats it.

 

[mraikes]

@Sky-Knight I have the same problem, and have no idea what I'M doing that is (to use your words) "flat wrong" that deserves blocking.

I send NO marketing emails of any kind - and never have. Not even once. I hate spam of any kind and consider even mass messages to existing/current clients to still be spam. I don't even email invoices. For that matter, I pretty much never send any email that isn't responding to one I've received from someone.

And yet, my messages to people - even responding to their emails - often go to spam folders with that same type of message "...
Lots of messages from domain were identified as spam in the past" Which is simply not possible for the simple reason that I do not, and never have sent "lots of messages" in any form.

My only guess is that someone has spoofed one or more of my domain's addresses for spam. Maybe many times over the years. I have no idea how to combat that and get removed from whatever spam list I may be on. Honestly, I don't even know how to tell who has identified my domain as spam.

 

[britechguy]

[with regard to proving you don't spam]
That's kind of like proving you no longer beat your wife, when of course you never have.

Well, it depends. If you are a subscription-only service you cannot, by definition, spam. The end user has to subscribe to receive email in the first place and can unsubscribe at any time.

Most e-mailing list services that approach ISPs to be removed from blacklists get removed pretty promptly unless they are very new services.

But, I will circle back to one of my points: You need to tell your recipients that they should unsubscribe (however you're handling that) from your emailing list and please not mark a message as spam, explaining why that is now problematic. Very few folks seem to understand the feedback loops that now exist, and I can understand this because they were put into place with good intentions and very little public discussion, or at least public discussion that was on end-user radar (and it sure wasn't on my radar, I learned about it long after the fact).

There was a time when marking a message as spam was the functional equivalent of just deleting it. Those days are long gone.

 

[britechguy]

@Sky-KnightAnd yet, my messages to people - even responding to their emails - often go to spam folders with that same type of message "...
Lots of messages from domain were identified as spam in the past" Which is simply not possible for the simple reason that I do not, and never have sent "lots of messages" in any form.

There are really only two things you can do here:

1. Ask the recipients to unmark those messages. Virtually all e-mail and webmail clients have a "Not Spam" button for things incorrectly classified. This is also used in the feedback loops previously mentioned.

2. Contact the specific e-mail service providers of those clients where your messages are being spam-trapped to find out what you might be able to do to get whitelisted. Almost all have a process for this where the sender is not a spammer. If you are a small business sending messages only to previous clients, and you give some form of opt-out method, that's generally all you'll need to demonstrate. Real spammers do not generally take the time to even attempt this because, well, they're spammers.

By the way, if anyone pursues option #2, it would be a kindness to start a topic in the Guides, Tips, & Tricks forum with a title like, "Getting yourself off of Spam blacklists," documenting how you did that for the service provider(s) you're dealing with. The hardest part of all of this is actually finding out how one does this for individual service providers.

 

[Larry Sabo]

You need to tell your recipients that they should unsubscribe (however you're handling that) from your emailing list and please not mark a message as spam, explaining why that is now problematic.

In my case, identical to that described by @mraikes immediately above your reply, these are just individual e-mails sent to individual clients. No mailing list ever involved.

I just sent myself (to my hotmail address) an e-mail with the same picture attached as was attached to the e-mail filtered as spam by my customer, and it was not filtered as spam. Same if I send it to my gmail account. I have my domain, hotmail and gmail automatically forwarded to my ISP mail account. Beats the hell out of me why so many of my customers end up with my mail in their spam folders.

 

[britechguy]

It often beats the hell out of me, as well.

But when anything lands in the spam folder that doesn't belong there, and you, the recipient, recognize it doesn't belong there, do whatever it is that needs doing to unmark it as spam. That gives input to the behind the scenes feedback mechanisms.

It's all we can do as individuals, and all we can ask those we know to do.

 

[Markverhyden]

SPF, DKIM, and DMARC are not optional.

This is absolutely critical. The problem is many people think they can use a free email to run their business. No longer the case.

15 years ago I used to be able to successfully challenge the spam classification on legit emails from those addresses. Now if someone asks I tell them they have to get a real domain, domain email server from a reputable provider, and the records @Sky-Knight mentioned.

 

[Sky-Knight]

If you're running your own mail server... you're going to wind up in the junk bin. Why? Because you don't have a functional reverse DNS, and you'll NEVER HAVE a functional reverse DNS. This also applies to most cloud VPS providers because their entire IP blocks have been abused too many times.

The harsh reality is this, if you aren't using GMail or Office 365's professional services, your mail will get tagged, and it's going to get WORSE over time. If you have a free gmail email and you're running your business out of there, you're really just asking for it. Google is INCENTIVIZED to black mail you into becoming a paying customer. They will do everything they can to make the service "work", in a frustrating way until you convert. Microsoft will do the same with any of the domains covered by Outlook.com. If you think they aren't mining the content if your mail to find people to annoy into becoming customers, you're being more than a little deluded.

If you're using some other mail hosting that's still on crap IMAP/POP3, the world knows you're single factor only risk monstrosities and they're going to mark you for it.

Finally, there are keywords and phrases that will almost always get you in trouble. Mortgage offices run into this ALL THE TIME. You basically can't say the word mortgage in an email without the content filters throwing crap in the junk bin. All of us tech providers? Did you think Google took the axe to our industry in adwords lightly? There's THAT much spam out there, so it's next to impossible for us to mention tech support in an email without the content filters zapping it.

It's not just about your identity... it's everything involved in the SMTP conversation. Who are you? Who's hosting you? What features are deployed? Did you bother to setup your DNS correctly? What are you sending me? The filters ask all of these questions and so many more.

So if you don't want your junk in the junk mail folders... you have to figure out WHY they're in the junk mail folder. And that honestly... is the hardest part. You need the logs from a spam filter that's blocking you. But again, if you're not on Google Apps, or O365 before you even start... it's a near lost cause.

 

[britechguy]

@Sky-night: Again, not in my observation or experience.

I've been using plain old Gmail since virtually its inception for both business and personal accounts, and I can't remember the last time I've ever been spam-trapped.

You're engaging in hyperbole, which serves no one.

 

[Sky-Knight]

@britechguy, you'll get mined eventually. BUT, you are better off on gmail than you are on an IMAP/POP3 service, or almost anything self hosted.

Google is a for profit entity, and they will be paid. Nothing is free...

 

[britechguy]

I don't know what you mean by "eventually," as being mined was part and parcel of the deal from day one with Google products (as they were introduced then).

I also don't know what you mean by separating Gmail from IMAP/POP3, as they can and do allow both access methods to their servers. I happen to use webmail as my primary interface, but have several e-mail clients set up via IMAP to the same accounts for the purposes of being able to test certain things. I have no idea why you are so anti-IMAP, but that's your call. It's what the vast majority of e-mail users are using and have been using for decades now. It's a tried and true protocol that does its job well.

I have never been under the illusion/delusion that Google, or any entity offering no cost (as in for pay) services was not getting their profit from monetizing information access. It is a truism that with free services, "You are the product." It was a trade-off I was and still am willing to make and I'm fully aware I'm making it.

 

[Sky-Knight]

@britechguy IMAP/POP3 Hosting services are all run in places that have been a constant source of abuse. As such, they have weak reputations. I expect over time this is going to get worse because IMAP and POP3 cannot easily be modified to support 2FA, which is basically required for all email now. If you're not using it, you're just putting yourself at risk, and frankly your customers too at this point.

Google (free and paid), as well as O365, and Outlook.com are harder for the reputation engines to separate. So free mail accounts are better than most IMAP/POP3 services from a reputation standpoint. But the best is still a paid account, with support, with one of the major and trusted cloud providers.

And yes, I'm anti-IMAP, because it's NOT SAFE. It's NEVER BEEN SAFE. And the bad guys are REALLY good at lifting passwords. I've watched hundreds of thousands of dollars vanish because executives listen to techs such as yourself and stick with those busted old protocols. No more... not on my watch. The lack of an on-premise, secure email client is the primary reason I don't sell Google Apps... ever... Though I do run Nexgen on it.

P.S. Google is working with Microsoft to update Outlook so that it can interface with Google services via their modern authentication. Once that process completes I wouldn't be surprised if Google nukes IMAP support entirely. You can get out of the way, or get run over, that protocol is going down. Again, 2FA is not an option, it's required. Microsoft is pushing that button themselves Sept of 2020. So we've all got work to do.

 

[britechguy]

I suspect that IMAP will be alive and well long after they've planted me in the ground.

Conducting anything sensitive via standard e-mail, regardless of the access protocol, is simply insane. Anyone who thinks that there is any standard e-mail that's safe for sensitive information will eventually be in for a very, very rude awakening.

2FA is gross overkill for a very great many situations.

In the computer security field, we often say that one doesn't need Fort Knox to safeguard a broken bicycle.
~ Glenn Glazer, M.S. ’07 UCLA Security & Cryptography,
April 25, 2019, in Message on Groups.io Beta Group

Information in e-mail should be of the "broken bicycle" level of sensitivity, at least if one is wise. There are information exchange protocols for highly sensitive information that should be used when needed. Email is not, never has been, and never will be among those.

 

[Sky-Knight]

That's a rather unfounded opinion, especially considering your thought process on this is betting against both Microsoft and Google... so good luck with that!

Secure delivery of email is the primary focus of both of their platforms right now, and will remain as such. The only difference provided by "secure" means of communications is authentication. 2FA protected mailboxes address that problem. And since encryption is now part of the package too on every level, it's the "secure delivery" services that should be worried, because they're pretty much irrelevant now. Though still necessary due to a lack of uniform adoption.

 

[britechguy]

Call it unfounded if you like, but I've been around the block many, many, many times since getting into this business in the early 1980s.

Something as ubiquitous and functional as IMAP ain't goin' away any time soon. POP probably won't, either, though it deserved a death long, long ago, and is a perfect example of something that hangs on simply because of the embedded base of users who are not going to switch.

What the end users are comfortable with makes a huge difference when it comes to something like this. It's akin to the VHS versus BetaMax wars (which one has to be of a certain age to remember). Superiority of technology has very often been the least factor in its success.