Manuel Lemos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yes, but keep in mind that spam and virus have pretty much the same > problem: it keeps coming in new forms. > > So what I think it would a be a killer feature would be to be able to > update new sets of spam filter rules that you download before you even > download your e-mail from a central server that keeps being updated with > new sets of rules by volunteer reporters. > > This way you avoid getting spam and virus that was already detected and > reported by other users.
Absolutely; this would definitely be a useful feature. > > queue up any messages received into a "Spam Processing" folder, and not > > actually deliver them to their final mailboxes until some background > > thread has gone through and looked up each message. This has some > > It seems that SpamNet plugin of Cloudmark for Outlook seems to be an > efficient solution. Take a look: > > http://www.cloudmark.com/ Looks like they're using the same thing proposed above: from <http://www.cloudmark.com/products/spamnet/overview/spamnet.php>: "If the system finds a spam message, SpamNet moves it to the Spam box." > > implications for folks who want to download messages for offline > > delivery as well. > > Can't have it all because the rules of what is Spam and what isn't are > not static and if you have to query an online database to figure it out, > there is no magic that will solve the problem for users reading messages > offline. All you can do is to process black/while listing rules first. Right, you have to do all processing that requires online looksup at the time you download the messages, which is the point I was trying to make. Or maybe the user could be given an option to turn off any such processing on a one-time basis when downloading for offline use. > > Sounds reasonable. One of the interesting things about a spam-filter > > feature is that there probably needs to be a couple levels of UI > > available, one basic, and one more detailed. Figuring out the best way > > to put this together in a way that's easy to interact with will be one > > of the bigger challenges, I think. FWIW, I like "Possible Spam" as a > > folder name. > > Yes, I think the default configuration should remain to not filter > anything to not confuse inexperienced users. Absolutely. > >> - Users should have a way to specify exception rules that would override > >> automatic actions associated to some filters, like those that query > >> remote spam knowledge bases, so users can override the decision that > >> others made that some types of message are to be considered spam but > >> they disagree. > > > > This is something that I suspect only advanced users are likely to be > > able to formulate in any meaningful way. > > Sure. Anyway, I see this a simple list of currently set rules that you > can disable on your current blacklist rules or additional rules that you > can add to your white list rules. Right; similar to the way the generic message filters interface works today, in fact. Dan
