Mailing List Archive

WARNING: Microsoft has earned removal from SA default welcomelist
Yesterday I received marketing spam from "Microsoft <replyto@email.microsoft.com>" advertising something apparently called "Microsoft Build" which is either a website or a marketing event: IDGAF. Spam was sent via Marketo, which I gather is now part of the sewer we call Adobe. It was absolutely authentic. Fully authentic Microsoft spam passing SPF, DKIM, and DMARC.

That spam was sent to my oldest and most widely scraped address (bill@scconsult.com) which I've literally never given to anyone for subscribing to or purchasing anything and which I am 100% certain I've never given to Microsoft in any way intentionally. There is no indication in the spam of any associated MS account. My comprehensive 29yr archive of all email ever received by that address has NO prior mail from MS. There was an unsub link, which got a page which revealed that I was somehow subscribed to multiple marketing bullshit lists. That page offered me a link to my "profile"(!?) which seemed to start to want to load up a page with an image and text placeholder blobs pulsing a bit before switching to a generic Microsoft account signup/login page. MS knew what my email address was and had me subscribed to multiple lists in some sort of "profile" without even asking me and without associating it to any actual MS account that I could conceivably access. I do have multiple MS accounts that I need for work purposes, and one I use for testing, but none of those are associated with bill@scconsult.com (except as a correspondent.)

In my opinion, this is an indication that the default welcomelist entries in the official SpamAssassin rules for '*@*.microsoft.com' are inappropriate. Note that there is an entry for '*@accountprotection.microsoft.com' which is still justified as far as I know. This is entirely unrelated to any domains hosted by Microsoft, it is strictly an email address welcomelisting (see SA docs for details.)

I will be committing the rule change today and it should appear in the default rules distribution channel by Monday. Anyone who is relying on that SA welcomelisting to accept wanted mail from MS should do so locally based on the specific local needs. I will also document this in a bug report, which I will resolve, to have a record of when and why this was done.

This may raise some questions and trigger a debate on the formal meaning of the SA default welcomelist entries. That debate belongs on the SpamAssassin Users List, but may pop up elsewhere. I believe that we have left a gap there in having a quite vague definition of what default welcomelist entries represent. As far as I know, clear criteria for inclusion have never been promulgated and accepted by the PMC or the user community.

More to follow in a separate thread.


--
Bill Cole
bill@scconsult.com or billcole@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Not Currently Available For Hire
Re: WARNING: Microsoft has earned removal from SA default welcomelist [ In reply to ]
On 4/12/2024 1:20 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
> In my opinion, this is an indication that the default welcomelist entries in the official SpamAssassin rules for '*@*.microsoft.com' are inappropriate. Note that there is an entry for '*@accountprotection.microsoft.com' which is still justified as far as I know. This is entirely unrelated to any domains hosted by Microsoft, it is strictly an email address welcomelisting (see SA docs for details.)
+1
> This may raise some questions and trigger a debate on the formal meaning of the SA default welcomelist entries. That debate belongs on the SpamAssassin Users List, but may pop up elsewhere. I believe that we have left a gap there in having a quite vague definition of what default welcomelist entries represent. As far as I know, clear criteria for inclusion have never been promulgated and accepted by the PMC or the user community.
+1
Re: WARNING: Microsoft has earned removal from SA default welcomelist [ In reply to ]
On 13/04/2024 03:20, Bill Cole wrote:

> In my opinion, this is an indication that the default welcomelist
> entries in the official

I'm good with that, so long as likes of google are not in any whitelist
either.

I haven't been following all the anti spam stuff as much as I used to (I
have people to do that for me so I can enjoy more of life) in past few
years, but I've never believed the big providers should ever have been
whitelisted.

I've used clear uridnsbl skip domain for donkies years (I think that's
the option that removes the dnsbl whitelistings going off memory) but
perhaps there should also be a similar command (if not already exist?)
that clears and disables /all/ whitelisting in rules as well, yes I know
in the past the recommended method was writing a gazillion entries in
local.cf zeroing out there scores, but isn't that kind of stupid in
2024.

Trust must be earned, not implied (or bought), as Joanne points out, "my
spam is your ham and vice versa"

--
Regards,
Noel Butler
RE: WARNING: Microsoft has earned removal from SA default welcomelist [ In reply to ]
All nice and well, but a bit decades to late. There should never have been such default whitelist. Companies should take care not be on blacklists, and should maintain some degree of standard implementation to send out email. After all spf -all exists already for a long time. So why are google/microsoft/yahoo etc still not using it? Why don't they separate free/spam clients on different infrastructure. Now these companies are big enough to abuse the market and force everyone to customize just for them. If you would block them now like any other company, clients complain and move their business to .... yes the market abusing companies.

It is just crazy that on the internet you are expected to clean up someone else's mess. If the macdonals next door creates a mess, you are also not cleaning it, you go and ask them to clean up their own shit.


>
>
>
> In my opinion, this is an indication that the default welcomelist
> entries in the official
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm good with that, so long as likes of google are not in any whitelist
> either.
>
> I haven't been following all the anti spam stuff as much as I used to (I
> have people to do that for me so I can enjoy more of life) in past few
> years, but I've never believed the big providers should ever have been
> whitelisted.
>
> I've used clear uridnsbl skip domain for donkies years (I think that's
> the option that removes the dnsbl whitelistings going off memory) but
> perhaps there should also be a similar command (if not already exist?)
> that clears and disables /all/ whitelisting in rules as well, yes I know
> in the past the recommended method was writing a gazillion entries in
> local.cf zeroing out there scores, but isn't that kind of stupid in 2024.
>
>
>
>
> Trust must be earned, not implied (or bought), as Joanne points out, "my
> spam is your ham and vice versa"
>
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
> Noel Butler
>
>
>
Re: WARNING: Microsoft has earned removal from SA default welcomelist [ In reply to ]
On 13/04/2024 19:27, Marc wrote:

> All nice and well, but a bit decades to late. There should never have
> been such default whitelist. Companies should take care not be on
> blacklists, and should maintain some

Absolutely, no arguments there!

> After all spf -all exists already for a long time. So why are
> google/microsoft/yahoo etc still not using it? Why don't

Mostly because all the google spam would pass spf/dkim/dmarc anyway, at
least tehy tend to learn you more as ham than spam if you send to them
with spf.

> they separate free/spam clients on different infrastructure.

Google do IIRC, Microsoft don't, it's why you wont find many of our
sites in bing, because they use their own search bots in IP ranges
shared with f'wit script kiddies, and I issued a directive no
whitelisting for MS search bots - not until they stick em all in one
subnet that does not, never has and never will have customers in it.

> Now these companies are big enough to abuse the market and force
> everyone to customize just for them. If you would

sadly, thats true, they think they are too big to block, but they have
all at some time found I don't work that way, nobody, is too big to
block, and its a shame that likes of spamhaus and spamcop operate that
way too, essentially shrugging their shoulders and going "oh well"

> It is just crazy that on the internet you are expected to clean up
> someone else's mess.

Ahmen to that.

--

Regards,
Noel Butler