Back to Community Threads
10
DISCUSSION: Block Sender / Mark Spam Functionality
Idea shared by Employee - 5/2/2018 at 3:12 PM
Completed
Employee Post
With the removal of Bayesian filtering in SmarterMail, we are discussing the best method for users to manage spam and unwanted emails in their mailbox. There are many threads relating to the Block Sender and Mark Spam functionality throughout this Community, so we are creating this thread to centralize the discussion and ensure we are meeting your needs. After reviewing the suggestions throughout the Community, here's what we think will work to meet the needs of most users.

Proposed Changes:

SEE NEW REPLY BELOW FOR AN UPDATED PLAN
  • Mark Spam and Mark Not Spam will no longer be available. Instead, in all email folders, users will have the ability to mark an email as junk or not junk:
    • Mark as Junk will essentially replace the Block Sender functionality. It would move any selected email to the Junk Email Folder and would add those senders' email addresses to the content filter currently named "Internal Blocked Senders". This filter would likely be renamed to "Move to Junk Email" to more aptly describe its purpose, but would otherwise remain as it is today to send all future messages from those senders to the Junk Email folder. 
    • Mark not Junk will essentially combine the Unblock Sender and Mark Not Spam functionality. It would move any selected email to the Inbox and would add those senders' email addresses to the user's Trusted Senders email address list.
    • Mark as Junk would check for the email address in Trusted Senders and remove it from there, if applicable. Mark not Junk would check for the email address in the Move to Junk Email filter and remove it from there, if applicable. Both of these options will have confirmation modals that will ensure the user understands its use and does not accidentally block or unblock emails. 
  • We will add an option in the email header and content pane's right-click context menu for Create Filter. This button would act as a shortcut to the content filter creation page, where all email addresses from the selected emails would be added as a filter Condition. This would allow the user to quickly create a content filter that meets their unique needs for the selected email addresses.  

Community Feedback:

Below is some of the common feedback from threads throughout the Community with an explanation for our decision to implement the feature or decline the suggestion:
 

The feature should not be named "Block Sender" if it does not BLOCK the sender.

We agree, and we propose changing the name from Block Sender to Mark as Junk to more aptly describe the behavior. Keep in mind that the decision to change the block action from 'Delete Message' to 'Move to Junk Email' was put in place in SmarterMail 16.x due to feedback from many administrators. The Delete Message content filter action that was in place for previous versions stops the email from reaching the spool, which permanently deletes the message and prevents its recovery. As a failsafe for user error, this won't be used in the block sender / mark as junk action from the Email section. That action will only be available for content filters manually created by users. 
 
In addition, the behavior to send messages to the Junk Email folder follows suit with other common email services, which move messages that are marked as spam to the spam/junk folder. Using Mark as Junk, the emails will effectively be blocked from reaching your Inbox. (For those worried about the junk email folder filling up, we have solutions available for folder auto-clean at the system, domain and user level.)
 

We need the ability to block and DELETE at the same time.
Allow users to choose the action for Mark as Junk (previously Block Sender).

With a name of "Block Sender" I can understand why users would expect emails to not reach their mailbox at all. This point, along with the removal of Bayesian filtering, has prompted us to change the name of this feature. That said, messages that are marked as junk will be immediately removed from the Inbox and sent to the Junk Email folder. They will never be permanently deleted from the mailbox. This follows suit with other common email services, which move messages that are marked as spam to the spam/junk folder. 
 
For those worried about users getting rid of valid email, blocked email can be recovered from the Junk Email folder or message archiving, if that's enabled. The confirmation modal should also help to clearly explain to users what will occur. 
 
That said, at this time, we are not inclined to allow users to modify the action of the block action. Flexibility within the product is almost always welcome; however, it's not always necessary and can often result in bloatware of settings or functionality. This feedback is part of what has prompted the plan to create a new email option for "Create Filter". This new feature will allow us to keep one standard behavior for Mark as Junk / Mark not Junk, while still allowing users the flexibility of quickly creating their own filters. 
 

Allow users a quicker solution for creating their own filters.

This feedback is part of what has prompted the plan to create a new email option for "Create Filter". This new feature will allow us to keep one standard behavior for Mark as Junk / Mark not Junk, while still allowing users the flexibility of quickly creating their own filters. For example, if a user would prefer to permanently delete a message from an email address or move it to a different folder, they could quickly and easily create a filter to do so.

 

Add Mark Spam button to the toolbar. 

(Tentatively declined, barring discussion)
From a design standpoint, this type of addition to the toolbar can quickly become a slippery slope, resulting in a very crowded toolbar. What one user uses often, another might not ever touch. On the other hand, some might prefer having Print or View Header readily available instead. We, unfortunately, can't accommodate every users' requests for which options they use most often. As it is, the Mark as Junk button would be quickly accessible from the content pane's right-click menu or nested only once within the [...] button.
 

Add "Don't show this again" option to the Mark as Junk / Mark not Junk confirmation modal.

(Tentatively declined, barring discussion)
Given the large number of reports that users have unintentionally blocked messages from valid senders, we feel it's necessary to show the confirmation modal to ensure users understand that messages they mark as junk will no longer be sent to their Inbox. 
 

Ongoing Discussion:

We would like to continue this discussion in the replies. Please let us know the items that you care most strongly about. Do you have any concerns with our proposed solution? Which requests would you consider must-haves? What else can we do to make managing unwanted messages in your Inbox effective and easy? 
 
The floor is yours.  
 
 
SEE NEW REPLY BELOW FOR AN UPDATED PLAN

61 Replies

Reply to Thread
0
Andrea, so the "Delete Message" action in Content Filtering will be gone? I hope not. If the action is still valid I think there's still a valid reason to have both Block and Junk / Not Junk actions.

A Block action should add the sender to Internal Blocked Senders with the action as Delete Message. There is no need for any Unblock action since there should never be any messages for that to be used on. If they want to remove an Internal Blocked Sender it needs to be done manually.

A Junk action should move the message to the Junk E-Mail folder and automatically added to a Junk Senders list with the action Move to Junk E-Mail.

A Not Junk action should remove the sender from the Junk Senders list, move the message to the Inbox folder, and add the sender to the Trusted Senders list to prevent future false positive spam filtering.

To further explain... we send a report to all users that have had messages sent to Junk E-Mail folder every day (which should be standard in SM). We have users that have extensive Internal Blocked Senders lists and use the Delete Message action to eliminate unwanted messages. If you remove or make the Delete Option difficult to use those hundreds of known unwanted messages would be sent to Junk E-Mail contrary to the users desire and intention.

Personally I have quite a few entries in my Blocked Senders list. Most are newsletters that seem to be impossible to unsubscribe from. They're sent from large senders like Constant Contact that we cannot block or even Greylist without causing problems for many, many users. If you change Blocked Senders to simply move the messages to Junk E-Mail then I have to again sort thru all those messages that I already know I don't want every day. That's not helping users, it's causing them more problems. Not what we want or need.

Thanks much,
-Joe
0
When the "Blocked Senders" became a "Just send the emails to junk mail folder" action that had no way for us to change it, we had a TON of pissed off users.

We had some users with many many hundreds if not thousands of emails that are now going to their junkmail instead of not receiving it at all, which then prompted users to have to manage their junkmail and wondering why emails they previously blocked are now being received. We still receive tickets about it today.

I vote for more control...

Honestly, for us, the web interface is wonderful, but the majority of our customers use IMAP so in order to mark an email as junk, you have to login to the web interface, which is an action they shouldn't have to do.

MAPI I assume will help this a ton, but for those without MAPI support, it is having to move to an external system to do an action.

What about an action confirmation after the "Mark as Spam" option that asks if they want it to just go to junk or block the sender forever, if they opt' to block forever, confirm they know what they are doing and that they will never get the emails again block.

I love the idea of a create filter option that pre-fills form. I do this all the time and I have to copy\paste the email address etc. It would also be awesome to do an "Add to existing filter" option where an email or whatever can be added to an existing filter rapidly without having to go find the filter, edit it, paste in the email address, save etc.
0
Employee Replied
5/3/2018 at 10:04 AM
Employee Post
Thanks for the feedback, Joe. We'll take this into consideration. To clear up some possible confusion... The Delete Message content filter action will still be available. We aren't removing that option in content filtering. However, in an earlier version of 16.x, we did change the behavior of the block sender filter to Move to Junk Email instead of Delete Message. If you're still on version 15.x, your Block Sender action will be Delete Message. However, if you upgrade to 16.x, the current action is Move to Junk Email.

I updated my text above to avoid some confusion.
0
Employee Replied
5/3/2018 at 10:11 AM
Employee Post
echoDreamz, thanks for your feedback as well. I figured someone would request a second step to the "Create Filter" addition of adding to an existing filter. I agree that would be a good idea for more flexibility and to prevent the creation of multiple filters that do the same thing. After posting this, I had actually talked to a team member about the possibility of an "Add to Filter" option which would show a list of filters that use an email address condition and allow the user to add the addresses there. However, I'm not a programmer and it hasn't been reviewed by one, so I don't know the backend work that would take. That said, I THINK it would be possible, and I agree it would be a nice addition if we're going that route.

I think you make other valid points and we'll take your thoughts into consideration.
2
A. I vote for contextual Junk / Not Junk button.
B. As for blocking the sender, add Sweep like this and lump control and user rule customization all in one menu:
 
3
Any chance IMAP users will be able to interact with the spam filters by moving messages to the spam folder?  We have a very small percentage of webmail users.
0
I'll second Joe on the spam daily digest email. It really cuts down on support when you don't have to ask your users to check their spam folder.
6
Andrea,
 
The Proposed Changes listed above are well thought out and would be a nice improvement to SmarterMail. The actions/options you described are how most email platforms work, would be easy to use, and will keep the user out of trouble. If the user doesn't want to receive messages from X, they should unsubscribe as blocking legitimate senders wastes system resources. And blocking spammers is useless because they never re-use the same email address.
 
If you really want to take it up a notch, then when the user chooses Mark as Junk, record some info about the message (IP address, sender, which DNS-BLs were triggered, etc.) and store it in a table. This would be useful information for the admin to review periodically. For example, to confirm which blacklists are working, so you could increase the score.
 
Thanks,
Kevin
0
Employee Replied
5/9/2018 at 8:13 AM
Employee Post
Thanks for the feedback, Colton!
2
This is on the top 10 list of most-requested features:
https://portal.smartertools.com/community/a362/allow-reporting-of-spam-via-imap.aspx

But unfortunately has been declined. :(
1
I second Kevin's response here.
3
As far as what was mentioned for IMAP users, our user base is mixed, we have people who prefer webmail, other users use POP strictly and a growing amount of users that favor IMAP because it makes email propagate the same way through all their devices.
 
So the issue with reporting spam with POP and IMAP is that the user has no recourse for it unless they log directly into the web interface, I can tell you, it inconviences the user and they get aggrevated that they have to do it. I have lots of users that do not like change or don't adapt to it well. So why not add a function in SM, that the user can submit the email to and SM will trap those emails. Something like spam@whateverdomain.com, or some special account you can setup per domain. Give the users something they can submit to. So if you submit something in, have SM analyze the header information and grab the necessary items from the header like the IP and email address, then add that to a blocked sender's list for that user that submitted the email. You could still even utilize the Internal Blocked Senders list that's already there. That way no matter what type of account the user is using, this could be something universal not matter what you are using, webmail, POP, IMAP, etc. or device. The reversal could also be done with emails sent to spam, but have an account notspam@whateverdomain.com and have it do the opposite with the header info, but this time put it in the Trusted Senders list for that user.
 
With the method I decsribed above it wouldn't matter that the user only used webmail or liked IMAP in their Outlook, they could submit spam and have email addresses whitelisted easily per domain no matter what device or email client they used.
0
Would also be neat, maybe.. If there could be some sort of a system level action when a message is marked as spam. Such as forwarding the message to a specified address or as an attachment. Or writing the .eml file to a specific directory IE ham / spam automatically.
2
Employee Replied
5/10/2018 at 5:34 PM
Employee Post
Thank you all for your feedback! We have completed our plan for managing unwanted emails in your mailbox, and these changes will make this process easy, accurate and customizable for each user's unique needs.
 
People always say to deliver bad news first, so I'll get that out of the way before jumping into our improvements to webmail. We've considered the request once again for spam reporting via IMAP, and I'm sorry to report that we won't be implementing this at this time. Please understand... With the removal of Bayesian filtering, SmarterMail itself no longer contains traditional mark as spam functionality. In addition, each email client treats spam differently. Some clients offer Move to Junk, some offer Block Sender, others offer Mark as Spam. We don't know which commands the plethora of email clients available will send for their mark as spam, block sender or move to junk functionality, or even if these clients will behave similarly. We can't make the assumption that a user who moves a message into their client's junk/spam folder knows that all future messages from that user will be blocked. At this time, those using IMAP will need to manage unwanted messages using the functionality available in their preferred client. 
 
Now, onto the better news that you've all been waiting and asking for... Here's a highlight of the changes coming to SmarterMail:
 
  • Internal Blocked Senders filter will be removed from Content Filtering and a Blocked Senders card will be added to the user's Spam Filtering instead. On this Blocked Senders card, users can select the action they would like to take for blocked senders: Move to Junk Email Folder, Move to Deleted Items folder, or Delete Message. When a user blocks a sender from their Inbox, the selected messages will follow their preferred action, and all future messages from that sender will as well.  Many of you requested the ability to customize this option per user. Others requested the ability to completely block the message from hitting the user's mailbox. This option will accomplish both of those requests.
  • Along with a Block Sender option, users will have an option for Trust Sender. If a valid email was sent to the Junk Email folder, the user can click Trust Sender to send that message to their Inbox and add the sender to the Trusted Senders list. All of their future messages will bypass spam filtering and be sent to the Inbox as well.
  • We're also adding a tag to the email header to show whether a message was sent from a Blocked or Trusted Sender. At a glance, users will have the security of knowing that an email is from a valid source, and they will be able to see whether the Trusted Sender is from their contact list, Global Address List, or the domain Trusted Senders list. If they're viewing their Junk or Deleted Items folder, they'll also be able to see at a glance which senders have been blocked. If this was done in error, they'll have a quick solution for unblocking that sender and moving the message back to the Inbox. 
  • A Create Filter option will be added to the email menus for a quick shortcut to the content filter section. This option will be available for individual messages, and it will pre-fill a filter with the From Address, To Address, and Subject of that specific email. Because the user will be taken to the content filter section, they can customize that filter to meet their needs. 
  • Accompanying the Create Filter option, Add Sender to Filter will also be added to the email menus. This will allow a user to select one or multiple emails, and add the sender of those emails will be added to an existing filter that contains the From Address condition. This feature was added to provide more flexibility to users and a quick solution for managing messages from specific senders.
  • Also planned for SmarterMail 17.x, users will have the ability to run content filters on demand. When a user creates a content filter for managing messages from a specific sender, they can then run the content filter against the Inbox, and all previous emails meeting those requirements will be handled to their preference. 
 
We believe these changes will make clearing out unwanted messages and preventing new ones from reaching the mailbox a much easier and accurate process, and we hope that these changes are a welcomed addition. (I am personally looking forward to some of these new features and changes.) And as always, we really do appreciate all the feedback we've received here, so I'd like to thank you for participating in this thread.
 
Thank you,
Andrea 
4
A little confused. So will there still be a "Mark as Junk" button?
 
If yes, you might want to update the dialog box below (taken from this Confirmation Popup Needed thread which is locked)
  • Change title from Block Sender to "Mark as Junk" to match the button the user just pressed
  • Update the paragraph to reflect new action listed above
  • Put "Block" button to left of Cancel button for consistency with other dialog boxes (OK is usually before Cancel).
  • Maybe change "Block" to "OK" since it really doesn't block, but move the message to Junk.
  • Keep the buttons close together, not in opposite corners 
Just making an extra effort here as this feature has caused a lot of confusion for our users as well as other people in this forum. See: https://portal.smartertools.com/community/a87133/block-sender-is-an-outdated-feature-that-permanently-deletes-messages.aspx
 
Thanks,
Kevin
0
Matt Petty Replied
5/11/2018 at 7:17 AM
Employee Post
I'm very happy we were able to come to a good conclusion on the Create Filter/Add To Filter functions. Power-users might get some really good utility out of these. \o/
Matt Petty Senior Software Developer SmarterTools Inc. www.smartertools.com
0
Employee Replied
5/11/2018 at 7:28 AM
Employee Post
Hi Kevin. Sorry about the confusion... There will no longer be a Mark as Junk button. Instead, there will be Block Sender or Trust Sender. Block Sender will either move the message to Junk Email, move the message to Deleted Items, or permanently delete the message - depending on the user's selection on the Spam Filtering > Blocked Senders card. The text on the confirmation modals and toasts will reflect this action and let the user know what's happening to that message and future messages from that sender.

Regarding the styling of the modal, this does follow consistency with the other modals in the interface. All modals should have the main action button to the right with Cancel and any other options on the left.

Finally, I do understand that you'd like to do away with Block Sender all together; however, with the removal of Bayesian Filtering, it's just not plausible. Users will need something to manage unwanted email, and Block/Trust sender should effectively allow them to do that. I do think your mention of spammers never re-using the same email address is a valid point, and it's something we will continue to consider.
2
OK, you might want to put a big red X over your Proposed Changes in original post to avoid confusion.

As for the new modals, I find them strange with Cancel button on left. Windows (89% market share) does OK/Cancel in bottom right. Mac (9% market share) flips the order and does Cancel / OK in bottom right. Not sure who else does Cancel button on left and OK button on right. The typical UX groups choices together.
0
How will this affect those of us who currently pipe ham / spam into our external SpamAssassin servers?  We need to maintain this functionality to properly train SA.
0
That sounds like a very good solution. Thanks for taking our requests under consideration.

I would request that you open a similar thread requesting opinions on a Junk E-Mail Daily Report or something similar. We currently use one for SmarterMail that works great (users can opt-out if they don't want to receive the report).

The report simply lists any messages that were automatically sent to their Junk E-Mail folder in the previous 24 hours. This way a user can look at one daily email and know if there's anything in their Junk E-Mail folder that needs their attention. Most third party spam filters include such a report.

This is now a critical issue since the entire data structure of SmarterMail 17 will change and existing solutions for this issue will no longer work.

I'm happy to provide a sample of the reports we generate and how we generate it if desired.

Thanks much,
-Joe
0
Employee Replied
5/15/2018 at 2:21 PM
Employee Post
Kyle, can you explain what mechanism you are using to "pipe" Ham / Spam to SA?
0
We have a bash script that mounts the ham/spam directories via SMB and passes each to sa-learn on the SA server.
1
Truly dumb question (not really as the only dumb question is one you don't ask).... 
 
If SpamAssassin is truly the "fix" for many of the answers why can't we integrate out of the box with SmarterMail? If this helps solve the problem, saves customers money, etc. then this seems something more important that a lot of the other features.
0
It breaks it. We did this to (but with a different system) and since ST removed Bayesian filtering from SM, it no longer moves messages to the spam / ham directories. The directories are simply unused now.
2
Hi Joe (Wolf)
 
Please be so kind to let us know how you manage to send your users that daily report listing any messages that was automatically sent to their Junk E-Mail folder in the previous 24 hours.
 
Many thanks,
 
Mike
 
0
@Joe Wolf, that would be great solution. Can you please share your implementation with us?

Many thanks!
0
I didn't code it but the SM Spam Report is still online:
http://www.palace-designs.com/services/products

I works GREAT! I've used it for many years.

-Joe
0
I didn't code it but the SM Spam Report is still online:
http://www.palace-designs.com/services/products

I works GREAT! I've used it for many years.

-Joe
0
@Joe Wolf, Many thanks, it looks great! Now we can instruct our users to log into webmail and mark non-spam emails as such which then will be placed on a whitelist.

Great!
0
With the removal of Bayesian filtering in SmarterMail, we are discussing the best method for users to manage spam and unwanted emails in their mailbox.
 
The way solid companies work is: They discuss such changes first, then implement and test a new solution and only after that they disable (not remove) the old feature like Bayesian filtering (with ability to enable it if customers still want it).
 
It is not the first case when SmarterMail team acts impulsive. It reminds the case with the "Show Password" button. It was removed, then returned back.
 
I hope SmarterMail will return Bayesian filtering back too. Otherwise it is just not fair to force us (customers) to pay for Cyren when we could filter spam for free. Do you guys have some agreement with Cyren?
0
I agree, this isn't the first time this has happened where a feature was taken away without taking a poll first from your paying customers. The part I find odd, we make suggestions and they need enough community upvotes to have something considered to be added to the software, then it's still ignored anyway. I've seen it numerous times where a good idea is left to just die in a thread somewhere.
 
Truth to tell though, I'm not really sure how well the built in spamassassin on SM worked anyway. We use a combination of external spamassassin and message sniffer to police spam on our server. The main concern I have since the built in spam filtering got taken out, if you use a setup like ours, how does that change how message sniffer works? We bought ours directly through ARM. So we don't use the built in method that SM provides.
2
Tim Uzzanti Replied
6/6/2018 at 12:15 PM
Employee Post
SpamAssasin hasn't been removed.

Bayesian was removed because it no longer had any value. It provided ABSOLUTELY no results. It was very legacy.

We are in the community constantly. We are constantly discussing features, bugs or why we made a change. We are constantly updating Topics. The releases are full of of features from the Community which we mark as completed. We discuss Topics that can't be done and why. Each release we take every Topic in the community based on Votes and see what we can implement and what we can't. In almost all cases we provided responses in the community.

Kind of tired of the general complaints that aren't even close to justified. The amount of communication we provide in the community far surpasses almost all companies. Heck, half the companies we use we can't even get in contact with.
Tim Uzzanti CEO SmarterTools Inc. www.smartertools.com
0
I suggested sniffer support since v3. When they finally implemented it, it only made my sniffer license more expensive. I ended up sticking with ARM as well.
0
Tim Uzzanti Replied
6/6/2018 at 12:22 PM
Employee Post
See comment below to Jay's post.

Its not true we didn't discuss some of the password changes prior to making the change.

What happened is that most people didn't participate until late in the BETA or after the BETA... then we were involved in hundreds of messages discussing pros and cons to the change. Again, we were very active. Now, you may not agree with our responses but we come from a VERY different perspective.

In regards to Cyren and Message Sniffer. These companies FOCUS on SPAM. We provide a certain level of SPAM protection but that is not our primary focus. SPAM, MALWARE, VIRUS are industries in themselves.

For some, our internal tools are just fine. For others they're not. We are primarily focused on the Mail Server itself and making it as functional, powerful and stable as possible.

Please participate in our BETA's. We have a 17.x BETA now. Next week will be a huge BETA release. During the BETA is our customers best opportunities to SHAPE the products.
Tim Uzzanti CEO SmarterTools Inc. www.smartertools.com
0
Tim Uzzanti Replied
6/6/2018 at 12:26 PM
Employee Post
Message Sniffer is another feature that was added based on customer requests. We personally use Message Sniffer and Cyren which eliminates bout 99.9% of our SPAM.
Tim Uzzanti CEO SmarterTools Inc. www.smartertools.com
0
Ok my fault for the error on spamassassin. I will admit when I'm wrong, it was bayesian that was removed. But I have seen posts in the past that no one from SM responded on. I'm not here to start a flame war, but good ideas from the community have been over looked before, maybe that is changing now and that is a good thing.
2
Bayesian was removed because it no longer had any value. It provided ABSOLUTELY no results.
 
 
It is not true. It worked. We upgraded to SmarterMail version with the removed Bayesian filtering and immediately got multiple support tickets with spam related complaints. A typical mailbox now get 40 to 60 additional spam emails a day!
 
We need Bayesian Filtering back. You can turn it off by default, it is ok. But we should have a possibility to turn it back on if we wish. Feel free to add some red Warning text like "It is a legacy feature blah-blah", but do not remove it.
 
P.S.
And PLEASE allow us to download minor versions of SmarterMail, not just the latest version.
2
In 2016 I asked 2 questions related to Bayesian filtering:
https://portal.smartertools.com/community/a87673/smartermail-bayes-filer-email-client-software-and-gateways.aspx
 
kevind replied that one issue is discussed from 2014 and another from 2015:
http://portal.smartertools.com/community/a362/allow-reporting-of-spam-via-imap.aspx
http://portal.smartertools.com/community/a87006/when-using-gateway-spam-checks-are-repeated.aspx
 
Now in 2018 SmarterTools just removed Bayesian filter instead of improving it.
 
SmarterTools had these options:
1. Improve Bayesian filtering.
2. Leave it as it was, but add a warning.
3. Make it open source.
4. Remove.
 
Why remove? Why destroy something at all? If you do not want to improve it yourself, then make it open source and let community to improve it.
5
All we miss is that when Bayesian filtering was removed, the spam/ham directories in SM stopped working as well. We used these folders to help train remote SpamAssassin filters and some other systems.
0
I'd LOVE to see SmarterMail have some sort of extendable Anti-Spam system where a .net developer could follow some interface and write their own libraries that SM could load to do custom spam filtering with systems that are not integrated into SM etc.
0
> Kind of tired of the general complaints that aren't even close to justified.
> The amount of communication we provide in the community far surpasses almost all companies.

Just one example:
https://portal.smartertools.com/community/a89812/bug-x-smartermail-authenticated-as-header-is-missing.aspx

My topic created 7 months ago, in November 2017. No answer from SmarterMail at all. Someone from SmarterMail could write something like "Yes, it is a bug, we will fix it in 2019" or "It is not a bug, because..."
0
Tim Uzzanti Replied
6/6/2018 at 3:01 PM
Employee Post
My employees including myself have 3,000 posts and many more thousands of comments on the community. You made my exact point. Global and Blanket complaint that we don’t communicate because we missed your post.
Tim Uzzanti CEO SmarterTools Inc. www.smartertools.com
0
How many missed posts should I show you?

An example of a good communication is: "Smartertools send an email to their customers and ask to vote for Bayesian filter (or Show Password) button removal. Customers vote. SmarterTools act accordingly." We never received an email like that.
0
And, by the way, that 7 months old question is not answered yet.
0
great idea.. if you've received an email in the mail client then just reply to yournamejunk@whatever.com. SM will see the address, can read from the header and see it was previously delivered and then it's added to the junk list.
there is only no controle to undo this from a mail client, but that's no problem.
0
"Regarding the styling of the modal, this does follow consistency with the other modals in the interface. All modals should have the main action button to the right with Cancel and any other options on the left"
I disagree

Main used buttons to the left, and others to right.. OK .. Not Ok, Yes or No, Do you want a cookie or no cookie etc
0
comment on bad news:
just in imap moving a mail to junkmail folder is enough, folders are synched in IMAP so junkmail folder on server is junkmail folder in IMAP client.
Moving an email from junkmail folder to inbox should learn the SM too that it's legit. Is that difficult to make?
You are not bound by the options mail clients have, just move a mail to a folder or remove it from a folder.

99% of my clients use Outlook or maybe eM Client..
All the good news of what is possible via the webmail, I do think these options are great, are only for webmail users
even on smartphones people use outlook gmail client etc. So they also miss these options

The junk digest Joe Wolf mentions would be a tool to get the customers to the webmail more. That would be a big plus :)
0
@Richard Frank, exactly my thoughts on this. It must be simple to watch folders in .NET and it has nothing to do with which email _client_ is used by the end-user.
0
@Joe Wolf - LOOKS perfect........downloaded it set it up run it but it finds nothing even though I can see junk email unread for the day I specify?
Total spam reports sent today: 0
Total Junk E-mail directories count: 0
0
Hi Andrea,
I've been working on Spam scoring recently and found that default installations of SM 16 and 17 were ~50% accurate. There are number of configuration issues that are being fixed in the next release (https://portal.smartertools.com/community/a91499/sorbs-rbl-configuration-issue.aspx) which, hopefully, includes my last finding on URIBLs. Along with these changes I've added/changed a few RBL/URIBL's based on the document from Bruce and todays block list services now giving me 99+% accuracy with no false positives and 95% of those are blocked on SMTP inbound so do not get additionally processed by the spooler. The configuration is easily copy/pasted in the spanconfig.xml and imported if you have any customers who would like to try the configuration out.
I can provide more detail if you'd like.

Regards,
Steve
1
Tim Uzzanti Replied
1/9/2019 at 9:29 AM
Employee Post
Steve,

We have some changes coming in the next minor related to some of our defaults. I'm going to have someone reach out to you and see how your suggestions align with what we are intending to update as well.  Appreciate you reaching out.  Expect someone to contact you shortly.
Tim Uzzanti CEO SmarterTools Inc. www.smartertools.com
0
Tim,

I know you guys are changing defaults, recommendations for IDS, etc. Will these be documented so that those of us already embracing SmarterMail 17 can also incorporate the new recommended settings?
0
@Steve Norton  I'd be willing to try out your ruleset if you want to share.

Can anyone confirm if the below works on SM17 - we used to use this on older versions of SM and it worked great

Joe Wolf RepliedMay 31, 2018 at 2:12 PM
I didn't code it but the SM Spam Report is still online:
http://www.palace-designs.com/services/products

I works GREAT! I've used it for many years.

-Joe
Jade https://absolutehosting.co.za
0
A critical feature is the ability to send spam to a third party, such as SpamExperts.  This requires either the ability to forward as attachment, or the ability to save to disk as .eml or .msg.
1
"Block Sender" is not a replacement for "Mark as Junk".  I receive dozens of copies of identical spam messages daily (a total of 150+ spam a day), with each identical message coming from a different email, and the emails are never re-used.
1
Yep. We REALLY MISS the spam/ham folders. We used them a lot with spamassassin and some other things, but now they are gone and we have no way to train for spam. We have a mailbox setup for MessageSniffer so they can POP the inbox, but it doesnt seem to do any good. I've been reporting the same non-English spam crap emails for like a year now, still getting them.

Clients who forwarded to our spam@ mailbox also complained that they reported the emails over and over and over and over and are still getting them, so seems that MessageSniffer or at least their POP reporting doesnt work all that well.
3
Yeah, I brought that up back in 2015 that real spammers never re-use email addresses, so Block Sender is not effective:

But it does cause plenty of confusion as users call in asking why they are not getting email from so and so, and it turns out that they blocked them accidentally.

The Proposed Changes at the top of this page outlined a good solution. AFAIK, it was never implemented.
0
Just to chime in on EchoDreams post, our installation is in the same boat as you. We used to train Spam/Ham for our remote Spamassassin installation, but since the removal of that, I implemented a workaround and just had our users forward the message as an attachment. That way I manually grab those entries daily to train our external SpamAssassin. As far as MessageSniffer, we have a license directly from ARM. We have the POP account setup for that, but like you I don't believe it's very effective. Maybe it worked fine for others, but it has not been very effective for us. Same emails just keep getting through and user complaints continue especially when they submit the same message over and over. I'm not here to bash anyone else's product, just sharing my experience for what it's worth.
0
I'd love for the Spam/Ham folders to make a return as well.  SpamAssassin was more accurate when we were able to train it.  We had a few honeypots set up that we'd log into and "select all" > "mark as spam" on a regular basis to keep it up-to-date.
0
What we really, really need is a plug-in for Outlook so that they can block/unblock junk from within the email client.  Anything short of that is generally going to be used by just a small fraction of users, and it will limit businesses from having interest in the product.

I'm not sure why this is being called "junk" either.  No single person has ever called it "junk" to me, it is always called "spam".  Calling it "junk" will lead to less people using it or understanding what it is.
0
Employee Replied
3/12/2019 at 4:57 PM
Employee Post
In Build 6911 (Dec 3, 2019), we made the following changes:

  • There is no longer a Mark as Junk or Mark Spam button. That said, we do have some existing discussion items relating to the management of spam emails. If you have additional requests relating to the Mark Spam button or managing unwanted emails in the Inbox, please post your suggestions in a new thread so we can better manage the discussion.
  • Internal Blocked Senders filter have been removed from Content Filtering and a Blocked Senders card has been added to the user's Spam Filtering instead. On this Blocked Senders card, users can select the action they would like to take for blocked senders: None, Move to Junk Email Folder, Move to Deleted Items folder, or Delete. When a user blocks a sender from their Inbox, the selected messages will follow their preferred action, and all future messages from that sender will as well.
  • Along with a Block Sender option, users have an option for Trust Sender. If a valid email was sent to the Junk Email folder, the user can click Trust Sender to send that message to their Inbox and add the sender to the Trusted Senders list. All of their future messages will bypass spam filtering and be sent to the Inbox as well.
  • A label has been added to the email preview to show whether a message was sent from a Blocked or Trusted Sender. At a glance, users will have the security of knowing that an email is from a valid source, and they will be able to see whether the Trusted Sender is from their contact list, Global Address List, or the domain Trusted Senders list. If they're viewing their Junk or Deleted Items folder, they'll also be able to see at a glance which senders have been blocked. If this was done in error, they'll have a quick solution for unblocking that sender and moving the message back to the Inbox. 
  • A Create Filter option was added to the Email section for a quick shortcut to the content filter section. This option will be available for individual messages, and it will pre-fill a filter with the From Address, To Address, and Subject of that specific email. Because the user will be taken to the content filter section, they can customize that filter to meet their needs. 
  • Add Sender to Filter was also added to the Email section. This allows a user to select one or multiple emails and add the sender of those emails to an existing filter that contains the From Address condition. This feature was added to provide more flexibility to users and a quick solution for managing messages from specific senders.
  • Users also now have the ability to run content filters on demand. When a user creates a content filter for managing messages from a specific sender, they can then run the content filter against the Inbox, and all previous emails meeting those requirements will be handled to their preference.
Back to Community Threads

Reply to Thread

Related Knowledge Base Articles

Recommended SPAM SettingsSmarterMail > Antispam and Antivirus
Sender Verification Shield and Incoming GatewaysSmarterMail > Server Configuration and Management
Deploying Rspamd For Use With SmarterMailSmarterMail > Server Configuration and Management
Slow 250 response after Mail From command is issued during an SMTP session.SmarterMail > Troubleshooting
Configure SmarterMail as a Free Gateway ServerSmarterMail > Server Configuration and Management