powermail-discuss Digest #2552 - Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Re: greeting card malware?
by "Michael Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: greeting card malware?
by <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: greeting card malware?
by "Michael Tsai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ultimate Spam
by "Richard Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: greeting card malware?
by "Michael Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Ultimate Spam
by "Wayne Brissette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Ultimate Spam
by "Geoff Roynon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Ultimate Spam
by "Justin Beek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Ultimate Spam
by "Tim Hodgson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: greeting card malware?
by "Michael Tsai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: greeting card malware?
by "Frank Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: greeting card malware?
by "Michael Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: greeting card malware?
by "Matthias Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Ultimate Spam
by "Matthias Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: greeting card malware?
by "Michael Tsai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Multiple databases (yet again)
by "Steve Abrahamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Ultimate Spam
by "Alan Harper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Ultimate Spam
by "Richard Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Multiple databases (yet again)
by "Jeremy Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Multiple databases (yet again)
by "Justin Beek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Multiple databases (yet again)
by "Steve Abrahamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re(2): Multiple databases (yet again)
by "computer artwork by subhash" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: greeting card malware?
From: "Michael Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:05:32 -0500
Frank Mitchell sez:
>I suspect these are intended to overload programs which work like
>SpamSieve with "millions" of random 'good' words. If there are enough of
>them they could eventually render SS ineffective. Your experience seems
>to confirm this.
>
>For this reason, I simply delete such random word messages rather than do
>a "Mark as Spam".
>
>That's my theory anyway 8^)
That was my theory, too. I went to the SpamSieve website and checked
forums, and the general consensus there was to continue to mark even
these kinds of messages as spam. So I have. On the plus side, more
messages like that get caught by SpamSieve. On the minus side there are
so many of them, I don't think I notice a difference until I do actual
counts. :)
I'll bite the bullet and begin saving up spam messages soon and then
remake SpamSieve's corpus. It should take about 9-10 days for me to get
1000 spams to index. Ugh.
Now, if I could only find a way to automatically trash all the political
mail my father sends to me but save his good messages. :)
--
Michael Lewis
Off Balance Productions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.offbalance.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: greeting card malware?
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:16:06 -0500 (EST)
I DON'T use spamsieve. I simply open my mailbox using webmail
(squirrelmail) and "select all" the messages. Then I scroll down,
unchecking the ones I want to keep. Then I click delete. Then I
download. This gives me visual control all the time and it is very fast
to do. I can skim through 100 messages in about 2 minutes and pick out
the 1 or 2 that I want to read. I have squirrel mail set up to move them
to a trash file first before they are gone forever, so if I "oops" all is
not lost.
> Frank Mitchell sez:
>
>>I suspect these are intended to overload programs which work like
>>SpamSieve with "millions" of random 'good' words. If there are enough of
>>them they could eventually render SS ineffective. Your experience seems
>>to confirm this.
>>
>>For this reason, I simply delete such random word messages rather than do
>>a "Mark as Spam".
>>
>>That's my theory anyway 8^)
>
> That was my theory, too. I went to the SpamSieve website and checked
> forums, and the general consensus there was to continue to mark even
> these kinds of messages as spam. So I have. On the plus side, more
> messages like that get caught by SpamSieve. On the minus side there are
> so many of them, I don't think I notice a difference until I do actual
> counts. :)
>
> I'll bite the bullet and begin saving up spam messages soon and then
> remake SpamSieve's corpus. It should take about 9-10 days for me to get
> 1000 spams to index. Ugh.
>
> Now, if I could only find a way to automatically trash all the political
> mail my father sends to me but save his good messages. :)
>
> --
> Michael Lewis
> Off Balance Productions
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.offbalance.com
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: greeting card malware?
From: "Michael Tsai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:23:55 -0500
On Jan 29, 2007, at 10:38 AM, Michael Lewis wrote:
> SpamSieve isn't even catching a lot of it, particularly the ones
> that are filled with random sentences from works of literature.
I'm not aware of any spam types that consistently get through
SpamSieve, when it's properly configured and trained. If certain
kinds of messages keep ending up in your inbox, please report them:
<http://c-command.com/spamsieve/manual-ah/what-information-should>
so that I can see if in fact they got through SpamSieve, and what can
be done about it.
On Jan 29, 2007, at 1:36 PM, Frank Mitchell wrote:
> For this reason, I simply delete such random word messages rather
> than do
> a "Mark as Spam".
I don't recommend doing that. Not correcting SpamSieve's mistakes is
a sure way to make more spam get through, and in certain cases is
equivalent to telling SpamSieve that you think the deleted messages
are good:
<http://c-command.com/blog/2006/11/11/tell-spamsieve-the-truth/>
--
Michael Tsai <http://c-command.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Ultimate Spam
From: "Richard Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:01:14 -0800
(1) Does any hosting service or ISP offer you the capability to bounce
spam? I know many offer excellent SPAM sequestering tools, even deleting
offending messages so you never have to see them.
But what I'd like to do is have my mail server bounce messages from
specific IP addresses. For this service, I would switch mail service
providers in a heartbeat.
(2) What is the best way to deal with the relatively recent phenomenon
of GIF spam. You know the ones. The Subject and body are random text.
The attachment is a graphic containing the spam pitch. I haven't been
able to derive a common identifier for them in the headers, and they are
not easy to define in a spam rule.
Richard Hart
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: greeting card malware?
From: "Michael Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:26:29 -0500
Michael Tsai sez:
>I'm not aware of any spam types that consistently get through
>SpamSieve, when it's properly configured and trained. If certain
>kinds of messages keep ending up in your inbox, please report them:
>
><http://c-command.com/spamsieve/manual-ah/what-information-should>
>
>so that I can see if in fact they got through SpamSieve, and what can
>be done about it.
Thanks for the pointer, Michael. I also followed the link on that page
to "Why is SpamSieve not catching my spam?" tutorial.
My filter was set to only operate if the From,Sender or Reply To:
address was not in my addressbook. I noticed that some of the spam not
making it through was being marked Good automatically in the log for
various reasons or possibly not being evaluated, so I've changed the
filter setting to Always as suggested on the Why...? page. Initial tests
look promising, and I'm sure SpamSieve will quickly pick up on my common
email correspondents.
I turned on the false negative message saving in case it doesn't work
out, so I can report more.
One interesting thing: The Why...? page says:
>To test that the rule works, select a spam message in your mail program.
>Use the Train Spam (Apple Mail or Entourage) or Mark as Spam (PowerMail)
>command to tell SpamSieve that it is spam. Drag this message to your
>inbox and select it again. Then manually apply the rule [Spam: Evaluate].
However, every time I drag the spam to reapply the rule from the Filter
menu, the log shows that I am manually choosing to make it NOT spam
again. There is a setting in PowerMail to manually mark as good any mail
dragged out of the Spam folder, so that could be a bit confusing. Once I
found that setting, I figured I was fine, so I'll wait to see if it gets
a real false positive now before I drag-and-drop from the Spam folder.
You might need to update the page to note the setting and tell people to
uncheck it to apply this test.
I've begun using Mail a lot for another account and have read SpamSieve
can handle both mail clients at once. I may set that up soon. SpamSieve
is a great product surpassed only by not having to download the junk in
the first place. :)
Thanks again!
--
Michael Lewis
Off Balance Productions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.offbalance.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Ultimate Spam
From: "Wayne Brissette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:37:58 -0500 (EST)
>(2) What is the best way to deal with the relatively recent phenomenon
>of GIF spam. You know the ones. The Subject and body are random text.
>The attachment is a graphic containing the spam pitch. I haven't been
>able to derive a common identifier for them in the headers, and they are
>not easy to define in a spam rule.
SpamSieve seems to be catching about 99.9% of these for me. If you're not using
that product, I would suggest you look at it.
Wayne
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Ultimate Spam
From: "Geoff Roynon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:16:17 +0000
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:01:14 -0800 Richard Hart said:
>(1) Does any hosting service or ISP offer you the capability to bounce
>spam? I know many offer excellent SPAM sequestering tools, even deleting
>offending messages so you never have to see them.
>
>But what I'd like to do is have my mail server bounce messages from
>specific IP addresses. For this service, I would switch mail service
>providers in a heartbeat.
>
>(2) What is the best way to deal with the relatively recent phenomenon
>of GIF spam. You know the ones. The Subject and body are random text.
>The attachment is a graphic containing the spam pitch. I haven't been
>able to derive a common identifier for them in the headers, and they are
>not easy to define in a spam rule.
>
>Richard Hart
>
>
I filter GIF and JPG spam before it reaches the Spamsieve filter so they
don't "pollute" the Spamsieve corpus.
In my filters, my first filter is called "Spam-gif" and has two conditions:
From is not in address book
Attachment ends with .gif
The Actions consist of:
Move message into folder Spam
Set label to Priority 4
I check my Spam folder once a day and delete the obvious spam after
reporting it to SpamCop.
Geoff
--
Using PowerMail 5.5 (SpamSieve 2.4.4) on a G5 dual 1.8MHz, 3 GB RAM,
under MacOSX 10.4.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Ultimate Spam
From: "Justin Beek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:34:12 -0600
Have you looked at:
http://www.hendricom.com/services.htm
from these dudes who make:
http://www.emailcrx.com/Welcome.html
On Jan 29, 2007, at 3:01 PM, Richard Hart wrote:
> (1) Does any hosting service or ISP offer you the capability to bounce
> spam? I know many offer excellent SPAM sequestering tools, even
> deleting
> offending messages so you never have to see them.
>
> But what I'd like to do is have my mail server bounce messages from
> specific IP addresses. For this service, I would switch mail service
> providers in a heartbeat.
>
> (2) What is the best way to deal with the relatively recent phenomenon
> of GIF spam. You know the ones. The Subject and body are random text.
> The attachment is a graphic containing the spam pitch. I haven't been
> able to derive a common identifier for them in the headers, and
> they are
> not easy to define in a spam rule.
>
> Richard Hart
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Ultimate Spam
From: "Tim Hodgson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 22:41:04 +0000
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 10:16 pm +0000, Geoff Roynon wrote:
>I filter GIF and JPG spam before it reaches the Spamsieve filter so they
>don't "pollute" the Spamsieve corpus.
>
>In my filters, my first filter is called "Spam-gif" and has two conditions:
I really don't think it's neccesary to do anything so complicated! I'm
using POPfile, which works in a broadly similar way to SpamSieve, and I
let that do the work. Its accuracy is currently 99.63%, and it was last
reset 16 months ago. I can't remember when a gif spam last got through.
I'm sure SpamSieve will cope just as well.
--
TimH
PowerMail 5.5.2 (build 4475) | OS X 10.4.8 | PowerBook FW/500 | 640MB RAM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: greeting card malware?
From: "Michael Tsai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:33:07 -0500
On Jan 29, 2007, at 4:26 PM, Michael Lewis wrote:
> My filter was set to only operate if the From,Sender or Reply To:
> address was not in my addressbook. I noticed that some of the spam not
> making it through was being marked Good automatically in the log for
> various reasons or possibly not being evaluated
Yes, using those criteria could cause some messages not to be
evaluated (in which case there would be no "Predicted" entries in the
log for them). I'm not sure what you mean about messages being marked
as good automatically.
> However, every time I drag the spam to reapply the rule from the
> Filter
> menu, the log shows that I am manually choosing to make it NOT spam
> again. There is a setting in PowerMail to manually mark as good any
> mail
> dragged out of the Spam folder, so that could be a bit confusing.
Thanks for mentioning that. I'll clarify it in the next revision of
the documentation.
On Jan 29, 2007, at 5:16 PM, Geoff Roynon wrote:
> I filter GIF and JPG spam before it reaches the Spamsieve filter so
> they
> don't "pollute" the Spamsieve corpus.
>
> In my filters, my first filter is called "Spam-gif" and has two
> conditions:
>
> From is not in address book
> Attachment ends with .gif
I don't think one needs to worry about polluting the corpus, and
SpamSieve should be able to catch these image spams. If this kind of
manual filter works well for you, that's great, but I don't recommend
it in general because there are legitimate reasons for non-spammers
who aren't in the address book to be sending GIFs.
--
Michael Tsai <http://c-command.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: greeting card malware?
From: "Frank Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:39:46 -0700
Hello Michael
>> For this reason, I simply delete such random word messages rather
>> than do
>> a "Mark as Spam".
>
>I don't recommend doing that. Not correcting SpamSieve's mistakes is
>a sure way to make more spam get through, and in certain cases is
>equivalent to telling SpamSieve that you think the deleted messages
>are good:
That makes sense.
But then why do spammers send messages full of random words? It seems
pointless to me.
Frank
-- Frank Mitchell, Scottsdale, Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: greeting card malware?
From: "Michael Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:38:27 -0500
Michael Tsai sez:
>Yes, using those criteria could cause some messages not to be
>evaluated (in which case there would be no "Predicted" entries in the
>log for them). I'm not sure what you mean about messages being marked
>as good automatically.
I probably didn't communicate that well. As an example, this was in my log:
=====================================================================
Predicted: Good (27)
Subject: dark side reap revenge
From: "side" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Identifier: khgtBI64xZPSBNTAr+Nhqw==
Reason: P(spam)=0.000[0.500], bias=0.000, authoring(0.002), attackers
(0.002), attackers(0.002), nur(0.002), nur(0.002), authoring(0.002),
alban(0.002), shivers(0.998), mozart(0.002), shivers(0.998), chronology
(0.998), chronology(0.998), S:dark(0.998), mozart(0.002), alban(0.002)
Date: 2007-01-29 15:05:02 -0500
=====================================================================
Trained: Good (Auto)
Subject: dark side reap revenge
Identifier: khgtBI64xZPSBNTAr+Nhqw==
Actions: added rule <From (address) Is Equal to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> to SpamSieve whitelist, added to Good corpus
(1950)
Date: 2007-01-29 15:05:02 -0500
=====================================================================
So, it was predicting this as good, and training it as good (auto). I
think that's the "Learning" function under Training preferences kicking
in? Then I'd click "Mark as Spam" and this would show up in the log:
=====================================================================
Trained: Spam (Manual)
Subject: dark side reap revenge
Identifier: khgtBI64xZPSBNTAr+Nhqw==
Actions: disabled rule <From (address) Is Equal to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> in SpamSieve whitelist, added rule <From
(address) Is Equal to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> to SpamSieve
blocklist, added to Spam corpus (2813), removed from Good corpus (1949)
Date: 2007-01-29 15:52:14 -0500
=====================================================================
Mistake: False Negative
Subject: dark side reap revenge
Identifier: khgtBI64xZPSBNTAr+Nhqw==
Classifier: Bayesian
Score: 27
Date: 2007-01-29 15:52:19 -0500
=====================================================================
The other setting was leaving spam which actually had my address in
them. As an example, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not in my addressbook,
so those usually got sent to spam just fine... The "Always" setting
appears to be catching the others now, too.
--
Michael Lewis
Off Balance Productions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.offbalance.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: greeting card malware?
From: "Matthias Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:27:39 +0100
Hello,
imho the Spam problem could be controlled much better, if the guys, who
are in charge of mailservers would configure these boxes better.
Bad mails (unauthorized senders, bad headers, infected mails etc) should
be bounced already by the mail server, before accepting it.
Most mailservers have good tools to do so and RBLs are also very powerful.
Example, I'm running a couple of domains on a server i manage and
receive 1 - 2 spams from there per day.
I have one mail address running on another server and it receives some
100 spams/day.
To catch that stuff on the mail client can be only the last step.
For me SpamSieve works excellent, I'd say 99.9% hits are correct.
all the best
Matthias
Am/On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 12:28:05 -0500 schrieb/wrote Mark Gerber:
>Thanks for all the responses.
>
>For the several weeks this has been happening I've been assuming this
>worm was a Windows problem and that my address was being spoofed. But
>then I came across a message that had been returned from a client's
>domain. Granted this is a huge company with any number of people and
>several websites--but I was alarmed at the coincidence (at least, I hope
>it was a coincidence).
>So I wondered if some malware out there had finally found it's way to OS
>X in spite of no mention of both it and "Macintosh" on the security sites
>I check when something like this comes up. I appreciate those familiar
>with these problems answering so quickly.
>
>It sounds like I have to endure these things until someone(s?), somewhere
>takes care of it on their own computer(s) and there's nothing I can do
>about it unless I want to track down the advertised ISPs and contact them
>to put a stop to it. And there is no way I can determine who's computer
>it was that snatched my domain for it's own use.
>
>In the meantime, I'll check out ClamXav and HenWen to see what they offer
>in terms of peace of mind.
>
>Mark
>----
>Mark Gerber
>GERBER STUDIO/Tradigital Illustration
><http://www.gerberstudio.com>
><http://www.theispot.com/artist/mgerber>
>
>
All the best
Matthias
-----------------------------------------------
Admilon Consulting GmbH
http://www.admilon.com
Tel. +81-736-56-3905
-----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Ultimate Spam
From: "Matthias Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:20:36 +0100
Am/On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:01:14 -0800 schrieb/wrote Richard Hart:
>(1) Does any hosting service or ISP offer you the capability to bounce
>spam? I know many offer excellent SPAM sequestering tools, even deleting
>offending messages so you never have to see them.
I don't, I mark identified Spam, becuase of the risk to bounce a legal
message.
but I do bounce mails coming from ips listed in rbls or which have bad
headers, viruses etc.
>(2) What is the best way to deal with the relatively recent phenomenon
>of GIF spam.
on the client side it gets identified by SpamSieve on the Server
FuzzyOCR is the way to go.
All the best
Matthias
-----------------------------------------------
Admilon Consulting GmbH
http://www.admilon.com
Tel. +81-736-56-3905
-----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: greeting card malware?
From: "Michael Tsai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:04:54 -0500
On Jan 29, 2007, at 7:39 PM, Frank Mitchell wrote:
> But then why do spammers send messages full of random words? It seems
> pointless to me.
The random words do help, to varying extents, against different types
of filters. And there's very little downside to including them.
On Jan 29, 2007, at 11:38 PM, Michael Lewis wrote:
> I probably didn't communicate that well. As an example, this was in
> my log:
>
> Predicted: Good (27)
> Trained: Good (Auto)
>
> So, it was predicting this as good, and training it as good (auto). I
> think that's the "Learning" function under Training preferences
> kicking
> in?
Yes, this is normal. The auto-training feature thought that this was
an interesting message because it was borderline (score of 27, with
50 being spam), so it decided to learn from it.
> Then I'd click "Mark as Spam" and this would show up in the log:
>
> Trained: Spam (Manual)
> Mistake: False Negative
But this time it was wrong, so with your help it corrected the
training and recognized that it had made a mistake.
--
Michael Tsai <http://c-command.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Multiple databases (yet again)
From: "Steve Abrahamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:22:32 -0600
I've asked this question several times, and I don't recall ever reading
a decent solution.
Since the 2 gig database limit is going to remain, I need to start
either looking at multiple-database operation, or looking for a new mail
client. I'd rather not leave PowerMail - I rely heavily on email and
that's exactly why I turn to PowerMail vs anything else I've found (so
it'd be sadly ironic if I had to change clients because I had too much
mail). So I need to see if I can create a decent multiple database system.
Can multiple databases be open and accessed at the same time? That would
be easiest, but I haven't seen that that functionality is available.
I've seen things about How To Split Your Database In Two, but not about
how to move mail from A to B once it's there (that's not true: I think I
recall hearing that you can drag to the Finder, switch databases, then
drag back in, but that's kind of like the modern version of copying
floppy to floppy when you've only got one floppy drive (anyone with me
on that one?).
Am I missing something sensible and robust? (I'm not interested in mail
archivers, either, BTW. I want to look for mail in one place only.)
Steve Abrahamson
Ascending Technologies
FileMaker 7 Certified Developer
http://www.asctech.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Ultimate Spam
From: "Alan Harper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:00:18 -0800
I am using Spam Assassin on my ISP as well as Spam Sieve on my laptop.
Spam Assassin is not very aggressive (it flags spam correctly nearly
100% of the time, but lets about 50% of the spam thru). The advantage of
using Spam Assassin is that it reduces the amount of spam I have to
download when traveling by 50% (I download and review it by hand only
when I have a high-speed connection).
Spam Sieve is really good, but it has consistently failed to recognized
"joe jobs"--where a spammer is using a return address at my domain, and
there are automatic replies to that address from the intended addressee.
I have special filters which seem to do a good job rejecting that source
of unwanted email.
To deal with .gif email I have a rule in PowerMail:
If Spam Rating is high
Move message into folder "Spam"
Don't notify new message
Don't show in Recent Mail
=> Move attachments to trash <=
Don't index message content
Don't apply subsequent filters to this message
The only problem with this is that PowerMail has a bug/feature lack that
once you have said "Don't index message content", there is no way to
later index the message if you identify the email as legitimate. (Other
than resetting the index, which I do every few months).
Please don't ever "bounce" spam--it only adds to the frustrations of us
"Joes" who have been "Jobbed".
A
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 13:01:14 -0800 Richard Hart said:
>(1) Does any hosting service or ISP offer you the capability to bounce
>spam? I know many offer excellent SPAM sequestering tools, even deleting
>offending messages so you never have to see them.
>
>But what I'd like to do is have my mail server bounce messages from
>specific IP addresses. For this service, I would switch mail service
>providers in a heartbeat.
>
>(2) What is the best way to deal with the relatively recent phenomenon
>of GIF spam. You know the ones. The Subject and body are random text.
>The attachment is a graphic containing the spam pitch. I haven't been
>able to derive a common identifier for them in the headers, and they are
>not easy to define in a spam rule.
>
>Richard Hart
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Ultimate Spam
From: "Richard Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 10:14:07 -0800
By this do you mean that, if you have been spoofed as the return
address, you will receive the bounce warnings from the mailer daemon?
Richard Hart
Alan wrote:
>Please don't ever "bounce" spam--it only adds to the
>frustrations of us "Joes" who have been "Jobbed".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Multiple databases (yet again)
From: "Jeremy Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:18:11 +0000
Steve Abrahamson (30/1/07 16:22) said:
>Since the 2 gig database limit is going to remain, I need to start
>either looking at multiple-database operation, or looking for a new mail
>client. I'd rather not leave PowerMail
I'm in the same position: I'd rather not leave PowerMail, but from past
experience multiple (user-created) databases are not a solution.
What I'd like to happen is that the database is split into one database
per mailbox/folder (which is what I think Apple Mail does), and the 2
gig limit applies to each folder rather than to the entire database.
Otherwise, I will find another mail client.
Jeremy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Multiple databases (yet again)
From: "Justin Beek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:35:30 -0600
There's always Mailsmith (that hasn't been updated for almost 2 years)
http://www.barebones.com/products/mailsmith/index.shtml
It saves the Mail as a bundle with a DB for each folder. As long as
you can keep the folders under 2GB - you're OK.
However, it's search speed and AppleScript support are quite lame
compared to PowerMail.
Good Luck,
Justin
On Jan 30, 2007, at 12:18 PM, Jeremy Hughes wrote:
> Steve Abrahamson (30/1/07 16:22) said:
>
>> Since the 2 gig database limit is going to remain, I need to start
>> either looking at multiple-database operation, or looking for a
>> new mail
>> client. I'd rather not leave PowerMail
>
> I'm in the same position: I'd rather not leave PowerMail, but from
> past
> experience multiple (user-created) databases are not a solution.
>
> What I'd like to happen is that the database is split into one
> database
> per mailbox/folder (which is what I think Apple Mail does), and the 2
> gig limit applies to each folder rather than to the entire database.
>
> Otherwise, I will find another mail client.
>
> Jeremy
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Multiple databases (yet again)
From: "Steve Abrahamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 12:41:45 -0600
On 1/30/07 at 6:18 PM, Jeremy Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
>Steve Abrahamson (30/1/07 16:22) said:
>
>>Since the 2 gig database limit is going to remain, I need to start
>>either looking at multiple-database operation, or looking for a new mail
>>client. I'd rather not leave PowerMail
>
>I'm in the same position: I'd rather not leave PowerMail, but from past
>experience multiple (user-created) databases are not a solution.
>
>What I'd like to happen is that the database is split into one database
>per mailbox/folder (which is what I think Apple Mail does), and the 2
>gig limit applies to each folder rather than to the entire database.
I'd be happy with setting up arbitrary mailbox databases - I could
easily move to 2 and be good for a while, then split to 3, but I'd have
to be able to easily designate what goes where, and have them all open
simultaneously.
I'd love to hear something hopeful from ctm on this. The notion that 2
gig is enough, and no good solution beyond that, just isn't, well, good
enough anymore.
Guys? Throw us a bone here?
Steve Abrahamson
Ascending Technologies
FileMaker 7 Certified Developer
http://www.asctech.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re(2): Multiple databases (yet again)
From: "computer artwork by subhash" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:50:02 +0100
[Jeremy Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 30.1.2007 um 18:18 Uhr:]
>the 2
>gig limit
I do not understand you people having problems with this limitation.
What is so important to keep 2 GB of it?
--
http://www.subhash.at
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of powermail-discuss Digest
