this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2026
781 points (97.8% liked)

memes

22471 readers
3653 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

DKIM, DMARC, SPF, rDNS/PTR, EHLO... all correct and verified in the email "original source," BY GOOGLE. Still goes to SPAM folder because **** you, apparently. I hate Google.

(page 3) 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ClamDrinker@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Google can still automatically mark your message as spam if enough people mark it as such or you trigger spam identification too often (this can happen if you send frequent test emails with not much in them) - it's not neccesarily an attack on you. But plenty of spammers will send perfectly well verified emails today, so you are just caught in the crossfire.

Try sending a gmail account you still have access to a couple of genuine looking mails (eg. At least a paragraph of legible text and with a signature), then marking the messages as not spam. That worked for me. Even after that though, one line messages can still trigger the spam detection.

[–] esc@piefed.social -3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Who cares? I'm not selling things, I have no idea where email goes on someone else's server, spam, straight to bin, whatever, recipient gets it and reads it or not. If they are so not interested in my message that they never read it, well, life goes on nothing was lost.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›