Hello, On 08/08/2002 11:36 PM, Jay Garcia wrote: >>>If you can, at the server level, block out the entire Class "C" 211 >>>domain and you'll eliminate most of the Asia Pacific Network that is now >>>responsible for over 50% of all spam ... I did just that and all of my >>>100+ email customers are rejoicing. >> >>That does not sound like filtering but rather like descrimination. >>Personally I am not interesting in droping messages before I have the >>chance to examining them. > > Yes, it definitely is descrimination, you betcha it is. And I have the > right and reponsiblity to do so as long as it doesn't adversely affect > my clients (it doesn't). 100% of all the mail that we've received from > the 211 domain in the past year has been spam. And approximately 80% has > been written in Asian Characters (I forget the correct designation) that > we have no idea what they mean.
Of course it is your right to stop whatever messages you decide that are not right for you. What I am saying that such radical spam exclusion action does not serve me, nor many other people as far as I could understand, because it may block solicited messages. > You have to understand server-side blocking/filtering to know that we > can also ALLOW as well as REJECT. If an entire class C domain, for > instance, is blocked, we can ALLOW certain specific addresses and/or > portions of the domain to pass through the filter. Ok, but that is still no good for me because there is still a risk of blocking messages that I want to receive. >>Chances are that you will be dropping solicited messages that may be >>eventually business or other opportunities by eventually excluding >>innocent people. > > There are no "innocent" people that will be sending me or any of my > Corporate clients from that domain or from any "known" spammer's domain. Sure, I understand that in your case it may be a viable and desirable option. >>I prefer client side filtering to be safe, so I can verify that messages >>are really SPAM before I discard them. > > In that case, the spammer has won the game. You MUST read the spam > message or at least a portion of it no matter how small. I don't see this a competition with spammers but just a way to use my time better without the risk of wasting opportunities. I don't spend much time verifying that suspected messages are spam as you suggest. Suspected messages are just moved from my inbox to a spam folder. I always read the unsuspected messages left in my in box first and later I will verify messages moved to the spam folder in bulk and that hardly takes more than a few seconds for each. > I'll take server side blocking any day as long as I am confident and > responsible enough to block "known" spam addresses. Every blocked > address (over 5,000 to date) is a "known" spammer address or domain, etc. Good for you. I suppose like the majority of the people, I do not have that control over my e-mail address incoming server. >>Another point, is that my public address is handled by a e-mail >>forwarding service run by ACM that I obviously do not control. Recently >>they have added anti-spam filters that are making me loose a lot of >>personal e-mail. > > > Then notify the server admin/isp/whatever. Or switch mail providers. I did, and (they say) they have removed the filters. >>I had to request to drop all filters for my address because that does >>not suite me. I also seen many people in the same situation complaining >>of the same. > > > Sounds like an irresponsible provider to me. That's not my game. Actually they admitted they had no idea that their filtering was not accurate enough and that somebody aware of that like myself would not want their server side spam filtering. >>Conclusion, I do not trust many spam filtering systems because it is not >>feasible to make them guess right what is spam. I prefer to receive all >>spam in my mailbox and sort them with client side filters. > > > That's your choice and you have to live with the caveats. My message here was with the intention to help Mozilla become a more useful mail program that it is today for me and certainly for many other people. You make it sound as if my suggestions are no good because they would not be useful for you. :-( >>Unfortunately Mozilla is not yet very capable for this purpose. I wonder >> if are there any real efforts in this direction. > > > Mozilla is quite capable if the filters are configured correctly. There > are some shortcomings to client side filtering but it works quite well > for the most part. There is more work to be done yet in this area for Moz. If so, please answer the original question, how do I filter messages with subjects or body parts encoded with Big5 in Mozilla? I am sure other people would like to know as well. Regards, Manuel Lemos
