Following Mike's forum hop.

As a matter of choice, I use POP mail. I like that it downloads everything automatically so I can process it on my computer. I know about other alternatives but this is how I prefer it. I never have to frutz around with logging into webmail and I have full control over the disposition of what gets sent to me.

Except now my mail provider has decided that it knows best. Soon the option to disable spam protection will be removed and whatever my provider decides is spam (often incorrectly) will be placed in the webmail spam folder instead of being downloaded like all my other popmail. This means I will be forced to periodically log onto webmail to check the spam folder. It appears I am allowed a setting to exempt domains from filtering. This kind of defeats the whole purpose since nearly all spam comes from Gmail and exempting that, which I have done, allows it all through anyway. Mainly it just means I have to go to the considerable extra trouble of sifting through all email addresses in my address book and exempting them one by one, and then I still will have to regularly check webmail to make sure I haven’t missed something I actually want.

I am perfectly capable of filtering my own spam locally (my email filters are at least as good as anything my provider has) and the lack of choice really pisses me off. I don’t want a nanny doing what is best for me. I prefer to make my own decisions about such things. Or is this just another ploy to make me look at their bloody advertising? I don’t know but the ability to turn off spam checking has worked fine for me for years and I don’t need or want this imposed ‘we know what’s best for you’ bullshit. It is really annoying. 
  

Rikkitic:

 

As a matter of choice, I use POP mail. I like that it downloads everything automatically so I can process it on my computer. I know about other alternatives but this is how I prefer it. I never have to frutz around with logging into webmail and I have full control over the disposition of what gets sent to me.

 

Except now my mail provider has decided that it knows best. Soon the option to disable spam protection will be removed and whatever my provider decides is spam (often incorrectly) will be placed in the webmail spam folder instead of being downloaded like all my other popmail. This means I will be forced to periodically log onto webmail to check the spam folder. It appears I am allowed a setting to exempt domains from filtering. This kind of defeats the whole purpose since nearly all spam comes from Gmail and exempting that, which I have done, allows it all through anyway. Mainly it just means I have to go to the considerable extra trouble of sifting through all email addresses in my address book and exempting them one by one, and then I still will have to regularly check webmail to make sure I haven’t missed something I actually want.

 

I am perfectly capable of filtering my own spam locally (my email filters are at least as good as anything my provider has) and the lack of choice really pisses me off. I don’t want a nanny doing what is best for me. I prefer to make my own decisions about such things. Or is this just another ploy to make me look at their bloody advertising? I don’t know but the ability to turn off spam checking has worked fine for me for years and I don’t need or want this imposed ‘we know what’s best for you’ bullshit. It is really annoying. 
  

 

Yeah, the problem is, you are the extreme edge case, not the rule, and as such, you will be the one to wear the inconvenience, as spam is a scourge and is the entry point for >75% of all IT compromises. We don't allow our customers to use POP for email, nor IMAP, as compared to the more modern mail protocols, they are unreliable, and as such cost a lot more to support. The ability of Gmail, Office 365 et al, which use 'proper' sync tools, to sync 'correctly' between multiple devices, is often seen as enough of a reason to switch for 95% of people. The rest find other IT companies to support them.

networkn:

 

Yeah, the problem is, you are the extreme edge case, not the rule, and as such, you will be the one to wear the inconvenience, as spam is a scourge and is the entry point for >75% of all IT compromises. We don't allow our customers to use POP for email, nor IMAP, as compared to the more modern mail protocols, they are unreliable, and as such cost a lot more to support. The ability of Gmail, Office 365 et al, which use 'proper' sync tools, to sync 'correctly' between multiple devices, is often seen as enough of a reason to switch for 95% of people. The rest find other IT companies to support them.

 

 

 

I get your point but I am an individual, not a company, and I am not a customer of anyone except my email provider. Why should I have to put up with this? Surely they can tell the difference between one person and a corporate block?

Rikkitic:

 

I get your point but I am an individual, not a company, and I am not a customer of anyone except my email provider. Why should I have to put up with this? Surely they can tell the difference between one person and a corporate block?

 

I think this is a matter of a change of your perspective personally. You aren't a consumer, or a company, you are a person sending/receiving emails. Email is the biggest source of security breaches, and and such, globally, new rules are being put in place to prevent spam and phishing causing expensive and time consuming and embarrassing breaches. If you've ever had your personal data 'stolen', then it almost certainly started with an email breach.

Gmail, 365, and other huge providers are all taking hard lines on verified communication, and this IS a good thing, even if it means some people will need to adapt. I understand your frustration, but for your own good, and that of everyone else, you'll eventually be made to comply with increasingly strict communication standards, and I'd encourage you to move to one of those larger platforms with newer protocols as part of doing your bit to help rise the tide and raise all boats. Your inconvenience is a small price to pay, for everyone's security.

Rikkitic:

 

As a matter of choice, I use POP mail. I like that it downloads everything automatically so I can process it on my computer. I know about other alternatives but this is how I prefer it. I never have to frutz around with logging into webmail and I have full control over the disposition of what gets sent to me.

 

Except now my mail provider has decided that it knows best. Soon the option to disable spam protection will be removed and whatever my provider decides is spam (often incorrectly) will be placed in the webmail spam folder instead of being downloaded like all my other popmail. This means I will be forced to periodically log onto webmail to check the spam folder. It appears I am allowed a setting to exempt domains from filtering. This kind of defeats the whole purpose since nearly all spam comes from Gmail and exempting that, which I have done, allows it all through anyway. Mainly it just means I have to go to the considerable extra trouble of sifting through all email addresses in my address book and exempting them one by one, and then I still will have to regularly check webmail to make sure I haven’t missed something I actually want.

 

I am perfectly capable of filtering my own spam locally (my email filters are at least as good as anything my provider has) and the lack of choice really pisses me off. I don’t want a nanny doing what is best for me. I prefer to make my own decisions about such things. Or is this just another ploy to make me look at their bloody advertising? I don’t know but the ability to turn off spam checking has worked fine for me for years and I don’t need or want this imposed ‘we know what’s best for you’ bullshit. It is really annoying. 
  

 

Could you possibly use IMAP as an alternative? You'll likely be able to use the same desktop client, and typically this will provide access to all folders, including the spam folder. It doesn't do a "download and delete" like POP does, but it also means no faffing around with webmail (which, like you, I don't use).

networkn:

 

I think this is a matter of a change of your perspective personally. You aren't a consumer, or a company, you are a person sending/receiving emails. Email is the biggest source of security breaches, and and such, globally, new rules are being put in place to prevent spam and phishing causing expensive and time consuming and embarrassing breaches. If you've ever had your personal data 'stolen', then it almost certainly started with an email breach.

 

Gmail, 365, and other huge providers are all taking hard lines on verified communication, and this IS a good thing, even if it means some people will need to adapt. I understand your frustration, but for your own good, and that of everyone else, you'll eventually be made to comply with increasingly strict communication standards, and I'd encourage you to move to one of those larger platforms with newer protocols as part of doing your bit to help rise the tide and raise all boats. Your inconvenience is a small price to pay, for everyone's securit

 

What you are telling me is my inconvenience is a price I have to pay for the stupidity of others. I have never experienced any form of security breach by any means. My mail has always been set not to automatically open messages and I keep HTML turned off. I never click any links and I inspect the properties of every message I don't trust (mainly out of curiosity). Common sense and lack of greed are good scam protections. I like seeing what spammers are up to. In any case, the 'protection' I am complaining about doesn't protect from anything, it just adds layers of unnecessary annoyance to my life. I like the way I have things set up. I don't need someone else getting in the way.

I'm only having a brief glance at this ongoing discussion, but I would like to chime in with a couple of points.

I absolutely agree that there needs to be a greater effort to cut down on malicious content. In my opinion, we haven't gone far enough with verification and it needs to be in the form of strict DKIM verification and domain alignment. SPF was problematic from the outset and is trivial to bypass, making it all but useless. DMARC adds little value as it requires either DKIM or SPF to pass.

Strict DKIM alignment is easy to achieve and the only people that would be inconvenienced by it are the marketers who edit e-mail in transit to insert their beacons and tracking links. These days, most of those services use their own proprietary interfaces (a few have SMTP relays) and companies seem willing to hand over control of their domain keys (not something I approve of), so that's not a significant barrier, especially if you consider tracking to be a bad thing. Companies that add signatures etc. wouldn't be affected because e-mail is usually signed after that step.

One point I must disagree on is the new protocols being an improvement. They are not. The current protocols are entirely fit for purpose.

Zigg:

Today's PB Tech order was shipped via Aramex. Good luck me getting that within the next 10 days! My last 2 Aramex "deliveries" have been a joke. 

Rikkitic:

 

I get your point but I am an individual, not a company, and I am not a customer of anyone except my email provider. Why should I have to put up with this? Surely they can tell the difference between one person and a corporate block?

 

If they no longer suit your bespoke needs, then take your mail hosting to someone else that still offers pop mail and limited spam filtering.

A single user is barely a blip on the income sheet. They will not care that they lose you when their changes will cut down the support costs from their users many times what they get from your sole hosting payment.

richms:

 

If they no longer suit your bespoke needs, then take your mail hosting to someone else that still offers pop mail and limited spam filtering.

 

A single user is barely a blip on the income sheet. They will not care that they lose you when their changes will cut down the support costs from their users many times what they get from your sole hosting payment.

 

Oh I'm not worried about that, it is just the principle of the thing. As long as I can keep exempting domains I get the same thing. I just don't feel I should have to.

Geektastic: The lack of attention to detail that seems to be endemic.

I ordered something from a store in Auckland that I’ve dealt with for years. The guy I deal with asked me if I wanted the item sent to the local courier agent in Rangiora for collection in order to avoid the two extra days that having it sent to my rural delivery adds.

I said yes please and reminded him that the parcel MUST go by New Zealand Couriers in order for that to work.

He sends me the tracking link an hour later. To New Zealand Post.

I contact him and it turns out his dispatch department completely ignored his specific written instructions to use NZ Couriers only.

The agent will not accept delivery from NZP so now he’s had to find a store in the city that will accept delivery, contact NZP and change the delivery address etc etc.

Jeebus.

Rikkitic:

 

What you are telling me is my inconvenience is a price I have to pay for the stupidity of others.

 

Yup, that's life. I can't drive my fast car over the posted speed limit because other people have made bad decisions in the past. 

Also, not all of this is stupidity, email breaches don't usually occur because people are 'stupid'. Uneducated, inattentive, unaware, yet all of those cause issues we need to protect others from. 

 

I have never experienced any form of security breach by any means. 

 

YET. If you think you are impervious, then with all due respect, you are deluding yourself. A moment of someone not at their best,is all it takes. 

Despite your protests and or inconvenience, this is being done to protect you and everyone else. (As are many things for all of us, even if we don't feel WE need it).

Anyway, it was your annoy thing, you can feel annoyed if you wish, I thought it might be helpful to provide some context to help you feel less annoyed, but I'll leave it there.

That despite multiple calls to Woolworths over several months regarding their delivery trucks repeatedly ignoring the STOP sign in our Street,

and multiple assurances that it won't happen again, they continue to do it! Sometimes at considerable speed! It is a blind corner!

The call centre is more interested in trying to take my details than the offenders!

msukiwi:

 

That despite multiple calls to Woolworths over several months regarding their delivery trucks repeatedly ignoring the STOP sign in our Street,

 

and multiple assurances that it won't happen again, they continue to do it! Sometimes at considerable speed! It is a blind corner!

 

The call centre is more interested in trying to take my details than the offenders!

 

I'd be emailing the CEO. In Australia, recently a CEO was imprisoned for injury to a driver as a result of failing to set and enforce standards for safe driving. 

You could be saving someones life.