on 10-11-2020 15:42
I have suddenly started recieving approx 10 emails a day all from the same @email address. I keep adding them to my blacklisted emails but they are still coming through as the begining of the email address is different for each one. Is there any way to completely blacklist the sender based on the @.... Part of an email address? It's driving me nuts. Thanks for any help
Answered! Go to Answer
on 23-11-2020 20:24
Sorry but again your explanation is not in simple terms. I do not understand half of what you are saying. What is a miscreant?
I have applied that on the filter but it changes. Now its Mcafee which I cannot add because that is the anti virus I use.
on 23-11-2020 23:03
Miscreant: A person who has done something wrong or unlawful ― in this case the spammer
Managing misidentified spam is never going to be straight forward given the frequency of change; as demonstrated by how the miscreant switched from Norton to McAfee. Hopefully you have gained enough knowledge to deduce that a rule can be created to stop subsequent rules running and that such a rule can be used to keep legit emails from McAfee in your Inbox.
on 24-11-2020 17:42
Why would a miscreant want to bother keep sending me spam?
on 24-11-2020 17:56
@smurfitt wrote:Why would a miscreant want to bother keep sending me spam?
Because they are hoping that you will fall into their trap and click on the links in the spam post and reveal valuable information such as your bank account details and other personal information that will enable them to steel from you.
I'm a Very Insightful Person, I'm here to share knowledge, I don't work for Virgin Media, I'm a VM customer. There are no guarantees that my advice will work. Please read the FAQs
Have I helped? Click Mark as Helpful Answer or use Kudos to say thanks
on 24-11-2020 19:45
Do they ever stop because its pretry obvious Im not falling for it.
Adding to that, even if I did click on the link they wouldnt find anything in my bank account. Lol
on 24-11-2020 19:57
They tend to come in waves. If your email address gets into one of the lists that scammers trade they you are likely to see an increase in spam.
It is always a good idea to use an easily disposable email address for online activity and keep your preferred email address as private as possible.
Clearly this is not foolproof as it just takes one careless use of a mailing list by one of your private contacts to expose your address.
I'm a Very Insightful Person, I'm here to share knowledge, I don't work for Virgin Media, I'm a VM customer. There are no guarantees that my advice will work. Please read the FAQs
Have I helped? Click Mark as Helpful Answer or use Kudos to say thanks
on 24-11-2020 20:22
Ive had this email address for 20+ years and never a problem until this.
on 24-11-2020 20:31
@smurfitt wrote:Ive had this email address for 20+ years and never a problem until this.
I have also had some email address for twenty years or more and some get more spam than others. If you have only recently been receiving spam then you have done well, but sadly the address concerned has now got onto a scammers list.
I set up a simple webmail filter to deal with the Norton menace that has recently plagued a blueyonder account.
I'm a Very Insightful Person, I'm here to share knowledge, I don't work for Virgin Media, I'm a VM customer. There are no guarantees that my advice will work. Please read the FAQs
Have I helped? Click Mark as Helpful Answer or use Kudos to say thanks
on 01-12-2020 00:29
FWIW the majority of the misidentified spam I have received of late contains a List-Id header and those lists I do subscribe to do not include this header.So I can safely direct these spam emails to a holding folder with the following rule:
NB: foo\.lan is a dummy value used to allow the rule to match other values but also to provide a means to list allowed domains. To allow a domain append it to foo\.lan with a | for example foo\.lan|example.org would allow a List_id value containing example.org to not be directed to the holding folder.
on 02-12-2020 14:22
Corrected filter rule previously posted follows ― thanks to Graham_A for reporting issue with previous iteration of rule: