Re:A Useful spam filter
I want to understand EXACTLY how my mail is triaged and why, particularly on my critical accounts. MA Unfortunately, it is my sad yet considered opinion the choice to do MA your own filtering is evaporating. My friend told me boastfully about MA how his Iowa (USA) ISP was Filtering his mail with a bayesian MA filter. I pointed him to a free bayesian filter he could operate MA locally, knowing exactly what was getting bounced. I politely beg to disagree. I think simple self filtering of spam is easy for most people. More than 95% of all my wanted email is both addressed to me and comes from someone with whom I have previously corresponded in my address book (2000 names), or comes from a dozen or so servers (eg. my University). Of the remaining 5% of wanted mail, it is difficult to imagine anything that would fail to mention my name (Dear Mark, Hi Mark, Mark, Hello Mark) or a few dozen keywords that any novel new person approaching me would have to mention to be of any interest whatsoever. Clearly this doesn't apply to everyone who uses email, but I would guess it applies to 95% of us out there who use our email addresses with a modicum of discretion. A few simple filters help to ice the cake (not addressed to me, multiple similar addressees, a few nasty keywords, foreign characters in subject, and routings through a few countries through which legitimate mail to me would never be sent). I really think it is OTT to suggest that The BAT! alone couldn't suffice for most people. The critical aspect of spam detection is *NEVER* to miss *IMPORTANT* legitimate mail and I think it is unlikely I would. Letting a few spams through is hardly relevant. Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Address Book group behaviour?
Hi folks, I have created an address book group with the idea of sending a single email to all members of the group (ie. a mailing list). When I am addressing an email, I can bring up the address picker and by default it shows me all email addresses in my address book. If I select the group at the top of the dialog, the list reduces to only those who are group members. This is all fine. However, when I press F8 to work with the address book I can *either* look at the group and its members *or* the top level of the address book but _without_ the group members. So, in theory, if I had twenty groups and I wanted to browse through the address book to find an email address, I would have to enter potentially all 20 groups to find them. Now I see that TB! allows for addresses to be in multiple groups, so why can't they also show up sans groups? (Ie. it copes with them being in multiple places already.) Also, as I am using the group for a mailing list, how do I deal with the case where one person has 3 email addresses, but I wish to use a specific one (which they nominated) for the maling list emails? -- Regards, Allister. Using The Bat! v1.61 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Test
Michael, On 13-06-2003 06:59, you [M] wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: M -- Your test failed. The signature delimiter should be -- (new line, dash, dash, space, new line). BTW, your signature is _huge_. -- greeting Best regards /greeting author Peter Fjelsten /author thebat version 1.63 Beta/7 /thebat version os Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1/os Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: A Useful spam filter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Mike, @12-Jun-2003, 19:05 -0400 (00:05 UK time) Mike Apsey [MA] in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said I want to understand EXACTLY how my mail is triaged and why, particularly on my critical accounts. MA Unfortunately, it is my sad yet considered opinion the choice to MA do your own filtering is evaporating. ... snip You are correct to an extent, but there are options... MA The face of e-mail is changing and the usefulness of the MA once-innocent Internet is fast deteriorating into a sleazebag MA carney sideshow, populated by hawkers, stalkers, con-men and MA idiots. A good description of the realities of the free-market commerce model and, despite the sleaze aspect, I wouldn't want it any less free. It's a rough with the smooth scenario. MA A grumpy old man's jaded opinion? Or is it the opinion of MA someone unafraid to speak his mind? ;-) shades of both! MA Zero replies and zero comments on my earlier list post, which MA although posted in good spirit with a 3-hour compose time, was MA evidently a waste of time in the minds of the target audience, MA eh? Not in the least. It was a great post! I said nothing because it was pretty much a very clear description of the Sherlock method I have used to filter spam here for a long time. Okay, I have no auto-responders for spam because I get a lot of support email out of the blue and have to fish a help me message from the spam-bucket every other day. Other than that, it makes much more sense than any fancy Bayesian or RBL system and is at least as (if not more) effective. ##Go Mike!!## ;-). - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v1.63 Beta/10 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. iQA/AwUBPumfFDnkJKuSnc2gEQLOMgCdGEIGZS8P+TBmcoIsSu68XfJLlT0An10B yMykOdYAJyZNme2efMwkQpkh =rISD -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Registration
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Tb, @13-Jun-2003, 06:09 Michael Thompson [T] in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said T How long are registrations valid? Thus far they have been continuous. T Ie, up to the next major release then have to pay again? This is guesswork, because there is no published policy concerning this: Old-hands may have to fork out an upgrade fee for v2. Folks who have bought within (say) the past six months may get the upgrade FOC. Unless there is a price change for v2... But, like I say, I'm guessing from things the RIT folks have said in the past. - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v1.63 Beta/10 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. iQA/AwUBPumkTTnkJKuSnc2gEQKAGgCgjECqi+JZ61M62B/9OxNbmSZJd6oAoPh9 dx8LsTdpmwzFJGk38p5WWp2u =A39C -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: A Useful spam filter
Hello Joseph, Thursday, June 12, 2003, 11:47:19 PM, you wrote: JN Any opinion about how either measures up to SpamPal? And while we're here, has anyone had any experience of SPAM CSI http://www.promailix.com/ ? I received a link from a colleague just this morning. It seems to offer a more proactive option to those who are bitter and twisted by all the SPAM they receive... -- Nick Using TheBat!: v1.62r on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
istration
Hello Marck, 13. junij 2003, 12:10:30, you wrote: MDP Old-hands may have to fork out an upgrade fee for v2. Folks who have MDP bought within (say) the past six months may get the upgrade FOC. MDP Unless there is a price change for v2... Of course, this is assuming that v2 will get released :) -- Jernej Simoncic, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www2.arnes.si/~sopjsimo/ ICQ: 26266467 [The Bat! v1.63 Beta/9 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195.Service Pack 3] Men, women and nations will act rationally when all other possibilities have been exhausted. -- Katz's Law Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Test
Hello Peter, On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, at 09:51:43 [GMT +0200] (which was 08:51 in my TimeZone) you wrote: PF Michael, PF On 13-06-2003 06:59, you [M] wrote in PF mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: M -- PF Your test failed. PF The signature delimiter should be -- (new line, dash, dash, space, PF new line). PF BTW, your signature is _huge_. No, It worked fine thank you. -- Best regards, Michael http://.thompsonmike.co.uk/ PGP KeyID := 0x402A090F Close your eyes and press ESCAPE three times. Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: A Useful spam filter
MA Unfortunately, it is my sad yet considered opinion the choice to do MA your own filtering is evaporating. My friend told me boastfully about MA how his Iowa (USA) ISP was Filtering his mail with a bayesian MA filter. I pointed him to a free bayesian filter he could operate MA locally, knowing exactly what was getting bounced. I politely beg to disagree. And I not only respect your right to do that, I yield to your well-earned position of respect within this forum. I think simple self filtering of spam is easy for most people. More than 95% of all my wanted email is both addressed to me and comes from someone with whom I have previously corresponded in my address book (2000 names), Agreed. Mail from prior correspondents is a cakewalk. A respectably large address book. or comes from a dozen or so servers (eg. my University). Agreed. Filtering by server to allow makes wonderful sense. Filtering by server to disallow, in terms of unwanted commercial mail would be a full-time job for me. Of the remaining 5% of wanted mail, it is difficult to imagine anything that would fail to mention my name (Dear Mark, Hi Mark, Mark, Hello Mark) or a few dozen keywords that any novel new person approaching me would have to mention to be of any interest whatsoever. Although an estimated 30% of my unwanted commercial mail does, in fact, mention my name, your suggestion to use phrases common to personal greetings and new-person approaches is valued. There are creative ways to do that as the wheat separates from the chaff. Clearly this doesn't apply to everyone who uses email, but I would guess it applies to 95% of us out there who use our email addresses with a modicum of discretion. Your comment a modicum of discretion can be taken in this context of this public personal reply to be addressed to me and I appreciate this opportunity to comment. I personally exercise more than a modicum of discretion in my dealings with e-mail, and yet as a resident of the US deal with between 30 and 50 bits of unsolicited e-mail each day. I am an active member of the Flight Simulation and Train simulation communities. I purchase frequently on-line. I am a registered user of a dozen or more privately run on-line forums for exchange of information, simulation 3rd-party software support, and to share what I've learned. I do not use IRC, I never post to Usenet although I am capable of doing so without my e-mail address or identity visible or optainable except through the service providers I use. I never press unsubscribe and until very recently did not bother to try to bounce mail. As I wrote in a separate post, most spam replies themselves bounce, however that could easily be a contrivance to separate the live fish from the possibly dead or dying ones. I respectfully remind you that any e-mail which does not bounce will reveal to the sender a fish has been caught. You and I are powerless to change that and I would be very surprised to discover that fact yet to be exploited. While visiting the respectable German website representing FSNavigator, a brilliant program designed to augment the navigational aids within Microsoft Flight Simulator, I replied to a message posted in the site's Newsgroup never for a moment even *dreaming* the message would be copied and posted to Usenet with my full registered address fully visible and ripe for harvest. I communicated my displeasure straightaway to the company but the damage had been done and my Spam skyrocketed--just as anyone's would if some unhappy chap with an axe to grind were to add a personal address to a Usenet post in that most lucrative and rich e-mail mining district. I do not dash about the Web willy-nilly, and if using Google, I will switch to a very crippled and script-disabled Opera-3, whose abilities are wonderfully limited as to what it will and/or will not reveal. Does this profile and these comments fit one who uses poor discretion in how e-mail is used? No, it does not. And yet, the spam flows. For the record, I very much enjoy my on-line pursuits, to include the challenge of creative eradication of unwanted commercial mail from my personal mailbox. I am here to learn. I am here to share. I am here to exchange ideas. I am not an e-mail simpleton and am long in the computer tooth with what I feel are things to contribute. A few simple filters help to ice the cake (not addressed to me, multiple similar addressees, a few nasty keywords, foreign characters in subject, and routings through a few countries through which legitimate mail to me would never be sent). Not addressed to me does not work for me although it will return to my Alternatives arsenal at the first stop. Foreign characters in the subject does not work for me, because many I correspond with are overseas in both directions. There are brilliant bits of software coming from non-english speaking countries, and many of us correspond through Altavista's Babelfish. Routings through a few
Re: istration
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi David, @13-Jun-2003, 12:19 David Elliott [DE] in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said DE Check your subject. I think your regex is a bit greedy. This is probably because of a reported bug in the %SINGLERE macro in the recent beta versions, rather than a regex... - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v1.63 Beta/11 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. iQA/AwUBPum8uTnkJKuSnc2gEQJergCg/te+UUSG9uZ6hS0TJXKbHf8x3wEAoMGL ZkTxEbg1gy7T+HSyY1tYBWoM =44kh -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: istration
Hello Marck, 13. junij 2003, 13:59:44, you wrote: MDP This is probably because of a reported bug in the %SINGLERE macro in MDP the recent beta versions, rather than a regex... It's the regex... I've just been too lazy to fix/replace it :) (I've been putting off fixing most of my templates for a while now - don't do today if you can do it next week =) -- Jernej Simoncic, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www2.arnes.si/~sopjsimo/ ICQ: 26266467 [The Bat! v1.63 Beta/11 on Windows 2000 5.0.2195.Service Pack 3] Live within your income, even if you have to borrow to do so. -- Billings's Law Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
help needed on Automated response(?)
Dont get confused by the Subject! When I am sending a Automatic Response using Rules, How can I get it not to quote the original message? In the Template Editor for the auto response it does not have the %QUOTES tag, that I can see, so how can i not get it to quote?? Thanks for any help... Michael -- Best regards, Michael PGP KeyID := 0x402A090F Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: A Useful spam filter
snip ##Go Mike!!## ;-). Thank you Marck--not to be confused with the Mark to which I replied somewhat pointedly yet politely earlier this morning. I wish no-one harm and value my opportunities to express opinions as fodder for balanced assessment in the virtual assembly of public comment venues both here and elsewhere. -- Regards, Mike Using The Bat! v1.62q on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: A Useful spam filter
huge snip *IMPORTANT* E-MAIL* let's see. Is that an oxymoron? Yes, it most certainly is in my household and after more than a decade of promoting it, encouraging people to use it, and trying to take it seriously, I have finally decided to step back and look at what it is, what isn't, what it has become, and the monster it is becoming. Make that after more than two decades . . . My, how time flies. -- Regards, Mike Using The Bat! v1.62q on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: A Useful spam filter
On Thu 12-Jun-03 5:17pm -0400, Mark wrote: MainSet: 40a.+,a.+,a.+,a.+, AltSet:1: 40a.+ , a.+ , a.+ ,a.+ , AltSet:2: 40a.+, a.+, a.+, a.+, AltSet:3: 40a.+,a.+,a.+,a.+, Mark, wouldn't anything found by AltSet 1, 2 or 3 would also be found by MainSet? Also, the docs aren't clear which PCRE options are set. Clearly, since you're searching kludges, you what to make sure '.' finds '\n' - so you might need (?s). AltSet:4: 40btinternet.+btinternet.+btinternet.+btinternet AltSet:5: 00a.+, a.+, a.+, a.+, Why not 00a.+,a.+,a.+,a.+, here? I do something similar. After all my 'normal' filters, one of my new spam filters, looks like this: MainSet: ,.*,.*, Present in Recipient AltSet1: @[EMAIL PROTECTED] Present in Recipient The first catches 4 or more addresses in either the To: or CC: The second catches 2 or more of my domain in To: or CC: From my testing, Recipient appears to, in effect, build a ToList and a CcList. As I mentioned, this filter is new and I haven't had much experience with it yet - but it caught my test mails. Thanks for your thoughts on this subject. I like doing these things directly in TB instead of with utilities that pre-read my mail (and give me less control). -- Best regards, Bill In fact, when you get right down to it, almost every explanation Man came up with for *anything* until about 1926 was stupid. [Dave Barry] Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Automated response(?)
Hallo Michael, On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 05:52:48 +0100GMT (13-6-03, 6:52 +0200, where I live), you wrote: MT When I am sending a Automatic Response using Rules, How can I MT get it not to quote the origional message? That's easy, you can do that by not using the %quotes, %text or %headers macros. Nor should you use a quick template that uses one of these macros. MT In the Template Editor for the auto response it does not have MT the %QUOTES tag, that I can see, so how can i not get it to MT quote?? That should do the trick, but if it doesn't, you could post the defined template here, so we could look at it. -- Groetjes, Roelof Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Automated response(?)
Hello Roelof, On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, at 16:30:02 [GMT +0200] (which was 15:30 in my TimeZone) you wrote: RO Hallo Michael, RO On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 05:52:48 +0100GMT (13-6-03, 6:52 +0200, where I RO live), you wrote: MT When I am sending a Automatic Response using Rules, How can I MT get it not to quote the origional message? RO That's easy, you can do that by not using the %quotes, %text or RO %headers macros. Nor should you use a quick template that uses one of RO these macros. MT In the Template Editor for the auto response it does not have MT the %QUOTES tag, that I can see, so how can i not get it to MT quote?? RO That should do the trick, but if it doesn't, you could post the RO defined template here, so we could look at it. Here is the complete template, as defined in Sorting Office -- Actions -- Auto Create Reply BEGIN TEMPLATE Hello %OFromFName, %QINCLUDE=SPECIALDATETIME %QINCLUDE=PGPREMOVE Your message was automatically moved for review without being read because HTML formatting was detected as: %OATTACHMENTS. Review may take anything up to 5 working days. After reviewing any future email may be allowed to bypass the filter. If your email was important please resend with NO HTML formatting. Please remove your HTML formatting and try again using plain text. -- Best regards, %FromFName %QINCLUDE=WEBADDRESS %QINCLUDE=GetPGPKey %cookie=C:\Documents and Settings\Michael Thompson\MAIL\cookies.txt %FROM=Mail Delivery System [EMAIL PROTECTED] END TEMPLATE As you can see, %quotes, %text or %headers macros are used. -- Best regards, Michael http://.thompsonmike.co.uk/ PGP KeyID := 0x402A090F Even the greatest of whales is helpless in the middle of the desert. Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Automated response(?)
Your message was automatically moved for review without being read because HTML formatting was detected as: %OATTACHMENTS. It is likely the %OATTACHMENTS macro is at fault here, if the attachment is actually *attached* and not merely named. Try removing that and see what happens. If that was my fault, I apologize and an addendum to the original message should be posted. -- Regards, Mike Using The Bat! v1.62q on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Automated response(?)
Hello Mike, On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, at 10:45:41 [GMT -0400] (which was 15:45 in my TimeZone) you wrote: Your message was automatically moved for review without being read because HTML formatting was detected as: %OATTACHMENTS. MA It is likely the %OATTACHMENTS macro is at fault here, if the MA attachment is actually *attached* and not merely named. MA Try removing that and see what happens. MA If that was my fault, I apologize and an addendum to the original MA message should be posted. No, Thats not it. I have a feeling it is down to the reply template. The reply is using the text area of the HTML. And that is what I need to stop. Is there any way of specifying the reply template that is used in the Sorting Office Auto Reply function? -- Best regards, Michael http://.thompsonmike.co.uk/ PGP KeyID := 0x402A090F I'm out of sick days, so I'm calling in dead! Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Automated response(?)
Hello Mike, On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, at 11:02:46 [GMT -0400] (which was 16:02 in my TimeZone) you wrote: MA Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MA Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MA Delivery-date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:02:55 +0200 MA Received: from [62.80.28.8] (helo=draenor.its-toasted.org) MA by mxng00.kundenserver.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) MA id 19Qq4r-0008Cy-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:02:53 +0200 MA Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=draenor.its-toasted.org) MA by draenor.its-toasted.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) MA id 19Qq4q-00057w-00; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:02:52 +0200 MA Received: from ms-smtp-04.tampabay.rr.com ([65.32.1.35]) MA by draenor.its-toasted.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) MA id 19Qq4i-00056z-00 MA for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:02:44 +0200 MA Received: from 000freexxx.com (rrcs-se-24-129-152-6.biz.rr.com [24.129.152.6]) MA h5DF2ejp018874 MA for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:02:42 -0400 (EDT) MA Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 11:02:46 -0400 MA From: Mike Apsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] MA X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.62q) Personal MA X-Priority: 3 (Normal) MA Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MA To: Michael Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] MA In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MA References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MA [EMAIL PROTECTED] MA [EMAIL PROTECTED] MA [EMAIL PROTECTED] MA [EMAIL PROTECTED] MA MIME-Version: 1.0 MA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MA Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MA Subject: Re: Automated response(?) MA X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MA X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 MA Precedence: list MA Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MA List-Id: tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com MA List-Help: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] MA List-Post: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] MA List-Subscribe: http://stromgrade.its-toasted.org/mailman/listinfo/tbudl, MA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] MA List-Unsubscribe: http://stromgrade.its-toasted.org/mailman/listinfo/tbudl, MA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] MA Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MA Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The reply is using the text area of the HTML. And that is what I need to stop. Is there any way of specifying the reply template that is used in the Sorting Office Auto Reply function? MA I assume you have navigated to the Actions tab of your filter, and MA chosen (Checked) the Auto Reply box found there, and that you have MA engaged the little icon to the left which launches the template for MA your auto-reply? yeap.. -- Best regards, Michael http://.thompsonmike.co.uk/ PGP KeyID := 0x402A090F If you ignore your health, it will go away. Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Automated response(?)
The reply is using the text area of the HTML. And that is what I need to stop. Is there any way of specifying the reply template that is used in the Sorting Office Auto Reply function? I assume you have navigated to the Actions tab of your filter, and chosen (Checked) the Auto Reply box found there, and that you have engaged the little icon to the left which launches the template for your auto-reply? -- Regards, Mike Using The Bat! v1.62q on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: Automated response(?)
Hello Michael, On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, at 16:04:35 [GMT +0100] (which was 16:04 in my TimeZone) you wrote: MT yeap.. Ok, Sorted. By creating the template from Scratch in Sorting Office got it all sorted. Thanks for your time.. -- Best regards, Michael http://.thompsonmike.co.uk/ PGP KeyID := 0x402A090F I had amnesia once or twice. Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Automated response(?)
Hallo Michael, On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 15:36:26 +0100GMT (13-6-03, 16:36 +0200, where I live), you wrote: MT %QINCLUDE=SPECIALDATETIME MT %QINCLUDE=PGPREMOVE What's in those quick templates? Especially the 'pgpremove' is suspect. It makes no sense to remove pgp from nothing, so that might just insert the message you're replying to. -- Groetjes, Roelof Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Registration
Hi Jernej, On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:10:11 +0200 Jernej Simonèiè wrote: This is probably because of a reported bug in the %SINGLERE macro in the recent beta versions, rather than a regex... It's the regex... Absolutely sure??? I can't imagine how a regex that formerly took care of a special character following 'Re' suddenly hits _any_ char after 'Re'. Additionally I've done some testing with %SingleRe and came to the conclusion it's not a regex in my setup ... I've just been too lazy to fix/replace it :) Could you nevertheless test this specific issue by removing %SingleRe from your reply template, just to confirm or decline my theory[1], as nobody else has done so yet? Please :-) [1] TBBETA: mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Ciao, Pit Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Registration
On Friday, June 13, 2003, 17:39:23, Peter Palmreuther wrote: It's the regex... Absolutely sure??? I can't imagine how a regex that formerly took care of a special character following 'Re' suddenly hits _any_ char after 'Re'. Here's what I've been using (no %SingleRe macro anywhere): %subject=Re: %setpattregexp=(?i)\A\:?(\s*\[.*\]\s)?(\s*(re|ha|rcpt|fwd| fw|fw|aw)%- (\[\d*\])?:*)*(.*)%RegExpBlindMatch=%OSubj%SubPatt=5 %CHARSET=iso-8859-2 Could you nevertheless test this specific issue by removing %SingleRe from your reply template, just to confirm or decline my theory[1], as nobody else has done so yet? Please :-) For the test, I added it (I just finished replacing all my templates with something that will be easier to manage), and I can confirm that %Singlere will eat the subject... -- Jernej Simoncic, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www2.arnes.si/~sopjsimo/ http://deepthought.ena.si/ Whenever a system becomes completely defined, some damn fool discovers something which either abolishes the system or expands it beyond recognition. -- Fourth Rule on Fools Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Default template issues... how do I MAKE default templates?
Hello Eric, Thursday, June 12, 2003, 3:24:15 PM, you wrote: I need to know how to either copy templates back and forth between accounts *or* edit the default values so that when I create new accounts they use the template settings *I* want and not the ones that come shipped/pre-defined. Having *many* accounts, I use the %INCLUDE macro to manage my templates. This method was mentioned long ago by, I believe, Nick Andriash. Create a text file for each of your custom templates and call them with %INCLUDE. You'll only have to alter one file for all accounts using a particular template. HTH. -- Regards, Paddy mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: The Bat!: A Better Mousetrap
Mike, Thursday, June 12, 2003, 7:16:00 AM, you wrote: MA Good to be back with you. Though not a complete package, I am MA having good results catching Spam with TheBat! You may not be interested in this after spending so much time on your current system, but a friend of mine recently turned me on to a program called POPFile. POPFile is free, open source, ridiculously easy to install and configure (10 minutes), and works *very well* on spam. Here's the URL: http://popfile.sourceforge.net/ POPFile uses a Bayesian Filtering algorithm to classify your email into buckets (e.g, Good Spam). You just need to ad *one filtering rule* in The Bat! Bayesian Filtering has been shown to work better on spam than other approaches (e.g., keyword matching, blacklisting, etc.) because it automatically adapts as spammers change their tactics. A year ago, for example, you could catch most spam by simply rejecting email that didn't contain your address on the To or CC lines. Spammers learned this and now individually address most of their spam. Here's a Web page that discusses spam and Bayesian Filtering in detail: http://www.paulgraham.com/antispam.html -- Joel Johnstone Using The Bat! v1.53t on Windows NT 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Automated response(?)
Hello Mike, On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, at 11:02:46 [GMT -0400] (which was 16:02 in my TimeZone) you wrote: snip entire originating message header The practice of publishing my entire message header here, and in the HTML archives is very much insulting and unappreciated. Kindly cease this practice at once or stop posting until you can figure things out. I am trying to help you, and in return, you both insult me and expose me to even more spam? I think not. A most unhappy, Mike -- Regards, Mike Using The Bat! v1.62q on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Automated response(?)
Hello Mike, On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, at 12:17:52 [GMT -0400] (which was 17:17 in my TimeZone) you wrote: Hello Mike, On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, at 11:02:46 [GMT -0400] (which was 16:02 in my TimeZone) you wrote: MA snip entire originating message header MA The practice of publishing my entire message header here, and in the MA HTML archives is very much insulting and unappreciated. MA Kindly cease this practice at once or stop posting until you can MA figure things out. MA I am trying to help you, and in return, you both insult me and expose MA me to even more spam? MA I think not. MA A most unhappy, MA Mike Opps, Sorry. Mistakes happen. -- Best regards, Michael http://.thompsonmike.co.uk/ PGP KeyID := 0x402A090F I'm not as dumb as you look. Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Automated response(?)
Hello Mike, Friday, June 13, 2003, 11:17:52 AM, you wrote: The practice of publishing my entire message header here, and in the HTML archives is very much insulting and unappreciated. I am trying to help you, and in return, you both insult me and expose me to even more spam? It is my understanding that email addresses, even in message bodies, are now concealed in the TBUDL web archives. Can anyone confirm? -- Dave Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: A Useful spam filter
Mark, Thursday, June 12, 2003, 3:50:17 PM, you wrote: M I think there are two schools of thought here. I for one prefer to M deal with spam with my own filters - the absolute last thing I want M is for some third party tool to decide what mail I get. I want to M understand EXACTLY how my mail is triaged and why, particularly on M my critical accounts. I haven't tried SpamAssassin, but programs like POPFile don't decide what mail you get, they only tell you what's spam and what's not. You then decide what to do w/ spam (e.g., move it to a spam folder for review, automatically delete it, auto-reply to the sender, etc.). They also do a *much* better job identifying spam than filters (including low false positives which, IMHO, are far worse than false negatives). The filtering system you presented, if I remember correctly, rejects all HTML email out of hand. This seems kinda draconian to me. I'll bet a lot of those rejections are false positives. POPFile actually reads the HTML and can correctly distinguish spam-HTML from non-spam-HTML. Anyway, that's my (limited) experience. -- Joel Johnstone Using The Bat! v1.53t on Windows NT 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Automated response(?)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Dave, @13-Jun-2003, 11:25 -0500 (17:25 UK time) Dave Gorman [DG] in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said The practice of publishing my entire message header here, and in the HTML archives is very much insulting and unappreciated. I am trying to help you, and in return, you both insult me and expose me to even more spam? DG It is my understanding that email addresses, even in message DG bodies, are now concealed in the TBUDL web archives. Can anyone DG confirm? Confirmed. :-))) - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v1.63 Beta/11 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. iQA/AwUBPun9UTnkJKuSnc2gEQKHIACg6kloqlZI5BKu7vy62/h0M++1IwUAmwbm c6NT9Dh09std26LPyKoStPBt =DpYw -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Automated response(?)
Hello Mike, Friday, June 13, 2003, 11:17:52 AM, you wrote: The practice of publishing my entire message header here, and in the HTML archives is very much insulting and unappreciated. I am trying to help you, and in return, you both insult me and expose me to even more spam? It is my understanding that email addresses, even in message bodies, are now concealed in the TBUDL web archives. Can anyone confirm? One thing is certain. A simple meta name=robot content=none won't work any more, and unless there is serious and sophisticated arrest of those things, the e-mail addresses within the body of messages could be harvested. I will await a reply from the management of the HTML archive. But you know? This is an excellent demonstration of exactly how even someone with indeed a modicum of discretion can be sucked into the Spam alleyways of this thing called e-mail and once thought to be the greatest thing since sliced toast for an inbox beating. E-mail is doing the impossible however--it's managing to kill the United States Post Office by driving postage prices through the roof with adjustments every few months, and turning it into a small package forwarding shop. Regarding my objection to Kichael's inclusion of my personal e-mail in the body of his post, he replied Opps, Sorry. Mistakes happen. These sorts of mistakes do permanent inbox damage and I am extremely unhappy at the moment. -- Regards, Mike Using The Bat! v1.62q on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: A Useful spam filter
snip The filtering system you presented, if I remember correctly, rejects all HTML email out of hand. This seems kinda draconian to me. I'll bet a lot of those rejections are false positives. POPFile actually reads the HTML and can correctly distinguish spam-HTML from non-spam-HTML. To this author, e-mail is text; HTML belongs on the web; HTML in e-mail is spam. Read my lips: Not a thing draconian about that logic. Anyway, that's my (limited) experience. As you say, your experience is limited. -- Regards, Mike Using The Bat! v1.62q on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Re[2]: Registration
Hi Jernej, On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:51:34 +0200 Jernej Simonèiè wrote: [...] (?i)\A\:?(\s*\[.*\]\s)?(\s*(re|ha|rcpt|fwd| fw|fw|aw)%- (\[\d*\])?:*)*(.*) This is the relevant part. As far as I can see this strips 're', 'fwd' ... etc, followed by maybe '[number]' plus potentially ':'s. So in worst case this could strip 'Re' from 'Registration' and leave 'gistration' but never 'istration', doesn't it? Please CMIIW ... and I can confirm that %Singlere will eat the subject... Thanks :-) Finally :-) I'm not brain dead, there seems to be in fact a problem with %SingleRe :-) -- Ciao, Pit Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Automated response(?)
Confirmed. :-))) I'll be the judge of that, thankyouverymuch by watching, and looking at the source. Regretably I explicitly and emphatically trust no-one in things e-mail and Internet and to put it mildly, I am absolutely furious over the recent open post of my home, private and personal e-mail address on this list, not to mention having the entire header displayed. -- Regards, Mike Using The Bat! v1.62q on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Automated response(?)
Hello Marck, On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, at 17:35:08 GMT +0100 (6/13/2003, 11:35 AM -0600 GMT here), you wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: DG It is my understanding that email addresses, even in message DG bodies, are now concealed in the TBUDL web archives. Can anyone DG confirm? MDP Confirmed. :-))) Good news! -- Best regards, Greg Strong TB! v1.63 Beta/11 on Windows XP Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: A Useful spam filter
Mike, Friday, June 13, 2003, 9:49:12 AM, you wrote: MA To this author, e-mail is text; HTML belongs on the web; HTML in MA e-mail is spam. MA Read my lips: Not a thing draconian about that logic. Ain't irony great? Anyway, if you're really interested in the topic, you might want to read: http://paulgraham.com/spam.html Here's an excerpt: A few simple rules will take a big bite out of your incoming spam. Merely looking for the word click will catch 79.7% of the emails in my spam corpus, with only 1.2% false positives. I spent about six months writing software that looked for individual spam features before I tried the statistical approach. What I found was that recognizing that last few percent of spams got very hard, and that as I made the filters stricter I got more false positives. -- Joel Johnstone Using The Bat! v1.53t on Windows NT 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re:Default template issues... how do I MAKE default templates?
On Friday, June 13, 2003, 18:05:22, Paddy L wrote: Having *many* accounts, I use the %INCLUDE macro to manage my templates. This method was mentioned long ago by, I believe, Nick Andriash. I just did something similar with my templates, except that I use %QInclude and Quick Templates... -- Jernej Simoncic, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www2.arnes.si/~sopjsimo/ http://deepthought.ena.si/ Our customer's paperwork is profit. Our own paperwork is loss. -- (Tony) Brown's Law of Business Success Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: Multiple Email Clients running simultaneously?
DG, Thursday, June 12, 2003, 7:34:39 AM, you wrote: DRS I am going to respectively disagree. The keyword here is DRS simultaneously. Two apps running a poll to a POP server(s) on DRS port 110 would tend to confuse the operating system. Same stands DRS for outgoing port 25. That's actually not the case. There's no problem opening up multiple client connection on the same port. I don't know of a Web browser that doesn't open *at least* 4 simultaneous connections on port 80. From the server side, you can't *listen* on the same port more than once, but that's not the same thing. The only problem you might run into with multiple email clients would be if the particular POP3 server running at your ISP didn't support multiple simultaneous connections to the same mailbox. Most servers I've run across lock the mailbox so only one client can connect at a time. But even that generally won't cause a problem. The clients should just retry until they get through. -- Joel Johnstone Using The Bat! v1.53t on Windows NT 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: A Useful spam filter
Hello Mike, Friday, June 13, 2003, 11:49:12 AM, you wrote: To this author, e-mail is text; HTML belongs on the web; HTML in e-mail is spam. Read my lips: Not a thing draconian about that logic. Anyway, that's my (limited) experience. As you say, your experience is limited. While in general I agree with your sentiments about HTML email, I do make exceptions for HTML newsletters, untrained family/friends, and the like. In my not-so-limited email experience I would agree that rejecting *all* HTML seems draconian. But if it works for you, so be it. However, I can't agree with the sweeping statement that HTML in e-mail is spam. As the HTML newsletters I subscribe to are in fact solicited and not commercial, they do not fit the standard definition of spam as non-solicited commercial email. Nor are my uninformed/untrained family/friends sending me unsolicited commercial email when they send me HTML emails. However, if we want to play word games, I guess we could refer to anything we feel like as spam. -- Dave Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Automated response(?)
DG It is my understanding that email addresses, even in message DG bodies, are now concealed in the TBUDL web archives. Can anyone DG confirm? Confirmed. :-))) You are aware, I sure, spiders exist programmed to ignore such foolishness as META NAME=robots CONTENT=noindex and all other silly and sophomoric attempts to send them away? You are aware of course that the copyright police and others have superior means of harvesting HTML data of any kind, **meta name robot whatever?** You are aware, of course that spammers are being offered those same tools? It's all a game and as a user, you are not in control. Today, the one with the most money for things Internet, wins. And my e-mail address has just been compromised as I discuss spam eradication methods with the TB! list? Lovely. Just lovely. That's what I get. Is it any wonder I cast broad and all-encompassing nets? Is it any wonder I have no patience to teach a well-intentioned Bayesian filtering program what spam is for chrissakes? For me it's simple: If I don't know you, your e-mail will be deleted unread and you will get an auto-reply describing how to circumvent the filter. If you choose not to read the reply or conform, you and your message can take a hike. It's all so painfully simple a child could do it. -- Regards, Mike Using The Bat! v1.62q on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re:A Useful spam filter
Hello, Friday, June 13, 2003, 6:49:12 PM, you wrote: MA snip The filtering system you presented, if I remember correctly, rejects all HTML email out of hand. This seems kinda draconian to me. I'll bet a lot of those rejections are false positives. POPFile actually reads the HTML and can correctly distinguish spam-HTML from non-spam-HTML. MA To this author, e-mail is text; HTML belongs on the web; HTML in MA e-mail is spam. No, it is not. There's no need to be paranoid about e-mails. MA Read my lips: Not a thing draconian about that logic. Your rules are way too serious in my opinion. But if this is that blows your hair back. Go with it! -- Best regards, Csaba Kiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel:+4687286259 fax:+468330498 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Automated response(?)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Mike, On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, at 12:54:37 GMT -0400 (6/13/2003, 11:54 AM -0600 GMT here), you wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: MA I am absolutely furious over the recent open post of my home, MA private and personal e-mail address on this list, not to mention MA having the entire header displayed. I can understand your feelings. However after going through intrusion with regard to my own on-line experience to a LARGE degree myself, I have come to accept the down side of being on-line with the HUGE up side of being on-line. The resources on-line to learn about advancing technologies and to communicate with friends, family, and associates far exceeds the negatives. I've learned I can't control what other people do, but I can control what I do. Simply stated as long as the UP side far exceeds the DOWN side, I'll stay on-line. When the DOWN side exceeds the UP side I will NOT be on-line although I don't expect this to ever happen. Your experiences may vary. The intrusion of other people into your on-line experience is nothing more than example of the negatives of the human condition. This has always been, and will always be. The only change is the medium upon which it occurs. - -- Best regards, Greg Strong TB! v1.63 Beta/11 on Windows XP Service Pack 1 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (MingW32) - GPGshell v2.70 Comment: Greg Strong (Email Mail Lists KeyID 0xB1FE63FA) iD8DBQE+6ggJsI2rzrH+Y/oRAqHEAKCdribeKmHZLc58blgf1qGMiz4LQQCgoBlf znnLEYbBQJccbmmv41es1ro= =/XQP -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Email addresses in the Archive (was Re: Automated response(?))
Hello Mike, Friday, June 13, 2003, 12:16:49 PM, you wrote: DG It is my understanding that email addresses, even in message DG bodies, are now concealed in the TBUDL web archives. Can anyone DG confirm? Confirmed. :-))) And my e-mail address has just been compromised as I discuss spam eradication methods with the TB! list? Lovely. Just lovely. That's what I get. Before you blow a gasket, take a look: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg57120.html. This message in the archive included email addresses in the body. Why don't you have a look and see if you can tell me what they were? -- Dave Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Automated response(?)
On Friday, June 13, 2003 @ 10:16:49 AM [-0700], Mike Apsey wrote: snip And my e-mail address has just been compromised as I discuss spam eradication methods with the TB! list? Lovely. Just lovely. That's what I get. Is it any wonder I cast broad and all-encompassing nets? Is it any wonder I have no patience to teach a well-intentioned Bayesian filtering program what spam is for chrissakes? For me it's simple: If I don't know you, your e-mail will be deleted unread and you will get an auto-reply describing how to circumvent the filter. If you choose not to read the reply or conform, you and your message can take a hike. It's all so painfully simple a child could do it. Wow. I've been on this list for well over a year now and for the most part, the tone has been quite friendly. sarcasmWelcome to the list Mike!/sarcasm Please, if we're all causing you so much grief, find another e-mail client and go bother their forum. -- Matt Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Automated response(?)
Hi Mike, On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 12:54:37 -0400 Mike Apsey wrote: Regretably I explicitly and emphatically trust no-one in things e-mail So your best bet is to stop posting. Even if archive conceals addresses in mail bodies (very bad, btw. look into HTML source at the bottom of the page), every spammer can easily simply subscribe this list and harvest addresses w/o end. This is a known fact for _EVERY_ mailing list that keeps the original From: header. So as much as your exercises about spam filtering are appretiated in list context you now can stop becoming personal (e.g. mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) and dooming every single thing you don't like and try to concentrate on the essentials here. I bet here're not many people subscribed that like spam and even lesser that try to provoke increase in spam in anybodys inbox, so a smart _hint_ (in opposite to a rough rant) should be enough in most cases. This explicitely excludes, of course, repeating offenders but I'm still about to see such here ... -- Ciao, Pit Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: A Useful spam filter
While in general I agree with your sentiments about HTML email, I do make exceptions for HTML newsletters, untrained family/friends, and the like. In my not-so-limited email experience I would agree that rejecting *all* HTML seems draconian. But if it works for you, so be it. Agreed. So be it. However, I can't agree with the sweeping statement that HTML in e-mail is spam. As the HTML newsletters I subscribe to are in fact solicited and not commercial, they do not fit the standard definition of spam as non-solicited commercial email. They do in my book. They could as easily send you a link. I don't buy HTML e-mail. Period. No compromises. Nor are my uninformed/untrained family/friends sending me unsolicited commercial email when they send me HTML emails. Uninformed/untrained family/friends are, or should be, trainable by a respected and experienced user. However, if we want to play word games, I guess we could refer to anything we feel like as spam. Word games? Oh really? I was present at the creation of e-mail and HTML was against the rules then, just as it is now. I am unwavering on that point and although I respect your views and rights to express them, if you or any of my Uninformed/untrained family/friends send me HTML it will bounce, and if they can't figure that out, they can either telephone me or send me a post card. Simple. Incredibly, wonderfully, simple. Word games? Pulze! No more of this HTML = good stuff with my name on it, eh? -- Regards, Mike Using The Bat! v1.62q on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Automated response(?)
Hello Peter, On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, at 19:33:02 GMT +0200 (6/13/2003, 12:33 PM -0600 GMT here), you wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Regretably I explicitly and emphatically trust no-one in things e-mail So your best bet is to stop posting. Agreed. -- Best regards, Greg Strong TB! v1.63 Beta/11 on Windows XP Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: A Useful spam filter
MA To this author, e-mail is text; HTML belongs on the web; HTML in MA e-mail is spam. No, it is not. Fine. Those who created e-mail, and I was present for that, are declared the losers, and those who want to send pretty flowers and silly pink backgrounds with their e-mails (never mind that it gets bloated 10-times necessary size), are declared in your book victorious and I, with my stodgy old ideas of what e-mail is and should be--am the enemy. There's no need to be paranoid about e-mails. Paranoid/ Please get serious, and stop with the left-handed insults already my young friend. Want me to put your e-mail address on usenet just so you can see what some people have deal with? Of course not. MA Read my lips: Not a thing draconian about that logic. Your rules are way too serious in my opinion. I will defend your right to have an opinion. I will defend your right to express that opinion. Kindly respect my right to have mine and to disagree without insulting me. But if this is that blows your hair back. Go with it! What is that supposed to mean? Do I not watch enough TV to be hip to the new teen slang? -- Regards, Mike Using The Bat! v1.62q on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Automated response(?)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello Mike, On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, at 12:54:37 GMT -0400 (6/13/2003, 11:54 AM -0600 GMT here), you wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: MA I am absolutely furious over the recent open post of my home, MA private and personal e-mail address on this list, not to mention MA having the entire header displayed. I can understand your feelings. However after going through intrusion with regard to my own on-line experience to a LARGE degree myself, I have come to accept the down side of being on-line with the HUGE up side of being on-line. The resources on-line to learn about advancing technologies and to communicate with friends, family, and associates far exceeds the negatives. I've learned I can't control what other people do, but I can control what I do. Simply stated as long as the UP side far exceeds the DOWN side, I'll stay on-line. When the DOWN side exceeds the UP side I will NOT be on-line although I don't expect this to ever happen. Your experiences may vary. The intrusion of other people into your on-line experience is nothing more than example of the negatives of the human condition. This has always been, and will always be. The only change is the medium upon which it occurs. Your post is intact above. I should frame it. Well said, and I fully agree. Yes, the on-line experience for me has much more up than down and that's why I am here. Nice post. Happy to have seeded it. ;-) -- Regards, Mike Using The Bat! v1.62q on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Multiple Email Clients running simultaneously?
Hi DG, On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:34:39 -0400 DG Raftery Sr. wrote: Can I safely run multiple email clients simultaneously, on Windows XP Pro? Yes. I am going to respectively disagree. The keyword here is simultaneously. Two apps running a poll to a POP server(s) on port 110 would tend to confuse the operating system. Same stands for outgoing port 25. No. Simply false. I'd be _extremely annoyed_ if my mail server couldn't be connected by multiple clients simultaneously on port 25. The same goes for Port 110 and nearly every over port a service is running on. Every service that listens on a port and does not spawn a child to handle the accepted connection for being ready to accept the next conncetion while the first still persist is either bad programmed or designed for a _VERY_ limited audience e.g. in a LAN or so. The only problem that arrises is when multiple simultaneous connections are made to a POP3 server using the same login data and therefore simultaneous access to one _Mailbox_ should be gained. But that's what locking is for: the POP3-server locks the mailbox once access is granted and every attempt to access this mailbox by a different process (resulting from a different, simultaneously opened connection) gets rejected ... until the first process releases the lock (after LOGOUT). So: should be no _general_ problem running multiple e-mail clients simultaneously, albeit Login denied error might occour when they try to login into the same POP3-Mailbox at (nearly) the same time. In a nutshell two apps cannot monitor and process the same ports simultaneously. 1.) Not _two apps_ 2.) _monitor_ Both applies to the server. Only one app there can LISTEN to a specific port. But this app can spawn childs after 'ACCEPT'ing an incoming connection, with the child handling the connection and the parent continuing to LISTEN for the next one who want's to talk. On client side they don't listen nor monitor a port. Open a command line window, tell The Bat! to fetch mail and execute a 'netstat -n' in the command line while mail is fetched: the clients use upper (1024) port for outgoing connections, two client programs connecting to port 110 one the same server use different _local_ ports. Therefore the rule of 'uniqueness' of a TCP/IP connection is kept. Uniqueness is enforced including _all_ parameters: REMOTE_IP:REMOTE_PORT-LOCAL_IP:LOCAL_PORT As long as _one_ out of these 4 parameters differs this is a completely valid _new_ und independent connection. If one is connected outbound to port 110 the other will generate a port in use or could not connect to server error. Definitely wrong :-) Sorry. Me too :-) -- Ciao, Pit Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re:A Useful spam filter
Hello, Friday, June 13, 2003, 7:44:22 PM, you wrote: MA Fine. Those who created e-mail, and I was present for that, are MA declared the losers, and those who want to send pretty flowers and MA silly pink backgrounds with their e-mails (never mind that it gets MA bloated 10-times necessary size), are declared in your book victorious MA and I, with my stodgy old ideas of what e-mail is and should be--am MA the enemy. The era of 28k modems are over. Get on with it! I could not care less if a message is 1 kb or 10 kb, or God forbid 1 Mb. MA Paranoid/ Please get serious, and stop with the left-handed insults MA already my young friend. Want me to put your e-mail address on usenet MA just so you can see what some people have deal with? Of course not. Listen old man! Looking at your e-mail rules I tend to think that you are the kind of man who is capable of doing that. MA Read my lips: Not a thing draconian about that logic. Your rules are way too serious in my opinion. MA I will defend your right to have an opinion. I will defend your right MA to express that opinion. Kindly respect my right to have mine and to MA disagree without insulting me. I am sorry, I do not even know what you mean by that. Probably my English is not good enough for that. I have not insulted you. But the read my lips expression was a bit too harsh. Please read my email and think again! -- Best regards, Csaba Kiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel:+4687286259 fax:+468330498 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Email addresses in the Archive (was Re: Automated response(?))
Before you blow a gasket, take a look: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg57120.html. This message in the archive included email addresses in the body. Why don't you have a look and see if you can tell me what they were? I cannot see nor determine them. They were hidden by the posting software. Well done. Some steam relieved and I salute your method. But before I rest my aggravation completely, I want to see the post in the archive and it's not there yet. Other valid information relative to my mail paths were presented which could subject servers in the advertised chain to DOS attack. If I want my headers made public, I'll do it myself. Tell you what, if I'm banging worthless drums here, send me an e-mail, and let me publish your entire header back to the list so we all can see exactly how it moves through the system, okay? Put the word pass in the subject line to skirt my filters. Blow a gasket? Pulze. -- Regards, Mike Using The Bat! v1.62q on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Automated response(?)
Wow. I've been on this list for well over a year now and for the most part, the tone has been quite friendly. sarcasmWelcome to the list Mike!/sarcasm Please, if we're all causing you so much grief, find another e-mail client and go bother their forum. Same way everywhere. Join us, but don't express any upstream opinions, and certainly don't say anything that might upset someone. I have never once been critical of TB! I will leave without hesitation when invited to leave by a moderator, not an individual listee as you have just done. Many thanks. Please read my posts, and if you have a problem, filter me. If you don't know how, read my posts. -- Regards, Mike Using The Bat! v1.62q on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Automated response(?)
Hello Mike, On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, at 13:47:09 GMT -0400 (6/13/2003, 12:47 PM -0600 GMT here), you wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: MA Well said, and I fully agree. Yes, the on-line experience for me has MA much more up than down and that's why I am here. MA Nice post. Happy to have seeded it. ;-) What can I say? Glad you like it! It pretty much sums up my feelings after years of on-line experience. -- Best regards, Greg Strong TB! v1.63 Beta/11 on Windows XP Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: A Useful spam filter
Whilst I'm not a moderator of this list, may I remind the majority of you who are chatting in this thread that this list is about an email program called The Bat!, and not Spam filtering, the internet and privacy, and whatnot. Thank you. -- Best regards, neurowerx (http://www.neurowerx.de) In the society of men the truth resides now less in what things are than in what they are not. -- R. D. Laing Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Automated response(?)
So your best bet is to stop posting. Ah, good! Without a single personal attack, and without a single defamatory word about TB! This is officially my second unfortunate invitation to stop posting here. Thanks, so very much. The view of e-mail with the fuzzy-wuzzy glasses removed is quite different from my side, wanna see? No? Fine. If I told you not to eat that apple because there was a worm visible to me, you could either take my word for it and have eyes in two places, or disregard my comment and discover the worm for yourself after biting into it. Your comment suggests you don't want to see anything but the good side. Being a Pollyanna is one thing. Rejecting valid input is another. As I said in another post, when a list moderator invites me to leave, I will--without fuss. Petition them if you like, you know who they are. Even if archive conceals addresses in mail bodies (very bad, btw. look into HTML source at the bottom of the page), every spammer can easily simply subscribe this list and harvest addresses w/o end. This is a known fact for _EVERY_ mailing list that keeps the original From: header. Ain't life grand? So as much as your exercises about spam filtering are appretiated in list context you now can stop becoming personal (e.g. mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) and dooming every single thing you don't like and try to concentrate on the essentials here. Excuse me? What did you just say? If spam filtering and privacy protection are not part of what's perceived to be essentials here, then I clearly misunderstand what TB! and its filtering methods are about. So what, I should praise this wonderful thing called e-mail? Get serious, young fellow. I bet here're not many people subscribed that like spam and even lesser that try to provoke increase in spam in anybodys inbox, so a smart _hint_ (in opposite to a rough rant) should be enough in most cases. This explicitely excludes, of course, repeating offenders but I'm still about to see such here ... In the real world a smart _hint_ will reach those thinking individuals who carefully read, can understand the spirit of the author, and can walk away without throwing stones or inviting him/her to simply leave. For the majority of busy folk, the message needs to be repeated. -- Regards, Mike Using The Bat! v1.62q on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: A Useful spam filter
On Friday, June 13, 2003, 00:50:17, Mark wrote: I want to understand EXACTLY how my mail is triaged and why, particularly on my critical accounts. The programs I mentioned don't trash the mail, they mark it. What you do with it afterwards is left up to you. I use SpamAssassin on a mail server I manage and for my personal mail, I have a probable spam threshold set to 4.5 points, a positive spam threshold to 10 points. No false positives so far even for the first one. And when you see the mail the gets caught by the 10+ - points filter, you'll agree that regular mail won't ever end up there. Roman -- Roman Katzer, Aachen, Germany Smart data structures and dumb code works a lot better than the other way around. -- Eric S. Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: A Useful spam filter
Hello Mike, Friday, June 13, 2003, 12:32:49 PM, you wrote: Nor are my uninformed/untrained family/friends sending me unsolicited commercial email when they send me HTML emails. Uninformed/untrained family/friends are, or should be, trainable by a respected and experienced user. You don't have the patience to teach a well-intentioned Bayesian filtering program what spam is, and I don't have the time to teach all of my friends that HTML email will send the earth spinning out of its orbit. However, if we want to play word games, I guess we could refer to anything we feel like as spam. Word games? Oh really? I was present at the creation of e-mail and HTML was against the rules then, just as it is now. As far as I know, the standard accepted definition of spam is unsolicited commercial email. To say that *all* HTML email is spam when I can provide specific examples of HTML email that is neither unsolicited nor commercial, is to change the definition of spam to include whatever *you* feel like including, thereby deviating from the standard definition of spam, and thereby playing word games. Pulze! No more of this HTML = good stuff with my name on it, eh? I have stated that while in general I do not like HTML email, but am willing to make specific exceptions. I have stated that for that reason, for my purposes I would consider a rejection of *all* HTML email as draconian. I have stated that classifying all HTML email as spam does not fit the standard definition of spam. Nowhere have I stated HTML = good. -- Dave Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Automated response(?)
Hello Peter, On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, at 19:33:02 GMT +0200 (6/13/2003, 12:33 PM -0600 GMT here), you wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Regretably I explicitly and emphatically trust no-one in things e-mail So your best bet is to stop posting. Agreed. My, we are collecting a whole list of people wanting me to go away. Sad, actually. Everyone wants the comments sugar-coated? No one wants to be on the receiving end of polite and civil dialog and debate? Fine. I think I'm getting the message but I will wait for Marck to banish me. And when of if he does, I will ask he remove my photo from the gallery. C'Mon folks! Grow up! Have a dialog! Quit with the namby-pamby, blind goody-goody e-mail is the salvation of man stuff already! It is NOT! Together we can work to delay what I think will be the eventual morphing of e-mail into much less than we have today! You may not agree with me, but my comments here are to increase the usefulness and longevity of e-mail, not to destroy it. And I am not now and never was interested in winning a popularity contest. Love me or hate me, I could care less. -- Regards, Mike Using The Bat! v1.62q on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: A Useful spam filter
On Friday, June 13, 2003, 00:47:19, Joseph N. wrote: Any opinion about how either measures up to SpamPal? My opinio is that they'll do a better job, universally. Spammers will aways find open, still unidentified relays. When I'm not mistaken, SpamPal only queries RBLs. Don't always trust RBLs! If the 'wrong' relay gets caught in an RBL, you can end up with 100% false positives. Bad RBL, no cookie. POPFile is a bayesian filter, SpamAssassin (and SAProxy) have a rule base. Each rule gets assigned a score which is determinded by a genetic algorithm to yield the lowest possible false negative / false positive quotas. Special attention is being paid to avoidance of false positives. Both programs are open source and continually being updated and enhanced. Roman -- Roman Katzer, Aachen, Germany This is the true nature of home - it is the place of Peace, the shelter, not only from injury, but from all terror, doubt and division. -- John Ruskin Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re:Automated response(?)
Hello, Friday, June 13, 2003, 8:19:37 PM, you wrote: MA C'Mon folks! Grow up! Have a dialog! Quit with the namby-pamby, blind MA goody-goody e-mail is the salvation of man stuff already! It is NOT! [...] I hate flame-wars just as much you do. But you provoke it with your style and flower language. HMTL mail is here and will stay whatever you declare and even if you were there at the creation of e-mail. Life changes and evolves. E-mail is changing into html. I am glad you can't do anything about it. Even TheBat supports it. I don't use it usually. But sometimes if I need it I use it to enhance my mails. Try to be a little bit more open-minded. People might get to like you. -- Best regards, Csaba Kiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel:+4687286259 fax:+468330498 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: A Useful spam filter
The era of 28k modems are over. Get on with it! I could not care less if a message is 1 kb or 10 kb, or God forbid 1 Mb. If your logic continues, very soon even the present internet infrastructure will be inadequate. I have a commercial broadband account and am unafraid of a 200+ Megabyte download. My comments are borne of a broader awareness of the future of the net, which for some reason feel compelled to protect. Get on with it!!?? I think you and I are finished communicating. Listen old man! Looking at your e-mail rules I tend to think that you are the kind of man who is capable of doing that. That was uncalled for. That was insulting. I am sorry, I do not even know what you mean by that. Probably my English is not good enough for that. I have not insulted you. But the read my lips expression was a bit too harsh. Please read my email and think again! Sorry, Read my lips is perhaps too strong but I don't need to think again. I do fairly well in live debates. -- Regards, Mike Using The Bat! v1.62q on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re:A Useful spam filter
Hello, Friday, June 13, 2003, 8:10:43 PM, you wrote: nwd Whilst I'm not a moderator of this list, may I remind the majority of you nwd who are chatting in this thread that this list is about an email program nwd called The Bat!, and not Spam filtering, the internet and privacy, and nwd whatnot. nwd Thank you. Spam filtering is a crucial part of handling e-mails. Even The Bat does it. I don't see any off-topic in it. -- Best regards, Csaba Kiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel:+4687286259 fax:+468330498 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: A Useful spam filter
I have stated that while in general I do not like HTML email, but am willing to make specific exceptions. I have stated that for that reason, for my purposes I would consider a rejection of *all* HTML email as draconian. I have stated that classifying all HTML email as spam does not fit the standard definition of spam. Nowhere have I stated HTML = good. Sorry Dave. I view dictionaries, as the late lexicographer David P. Guralnick said Dictionaries are historical documents, recording where a language was at the time it went to print (or words to that effect. The great Ambrose Bierce had yet another definition of the dictionary as A malevolent literary device which makes a language hard and in-elastic. What I am leading up to, is that I reject your definition of spam. Spam is a personal thing and we are dealing in semantics here. You don't want all HTML to be viewed as Spam. I do. End of story. -- Regards, Mike Using The Bat! v1.62q on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Automated response(?)
Good evening Marck D Pearlstone ! On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:35:08 +0100 GMT your local time, which was 13.06.2003, 18:35 (GMT+0200) where I live, you (Marck Pearlstone) wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: DG It is my understanding that email addresses, even in message DG bodies, are now concealed in the TBUDL web archives. Can anyone DG confirm? Confirmed. :-))) Hmmm, sorry, but are you sure? Here is the source code of the last message in the archive [I deleted the mail address, please check yourself] : ,-- [ http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg57980.html ] | !-- MHonArc v2.6.3 -- | !--X-Subject: Re: PC Lock ups and generally slow performance of The Bat! -- | !--X-From-R13: Xbua [befr cntrznxreNfrzb.arg -- | !--X-Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 07:22:35 #45;0700 -- | !--X-Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- | ^ Look here ^ | !--X-Content-Type: text/plain -- | !--X-Reference: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- | ^ Look here^ | !--X-Head-End-- '-- The header of the mail I received [mail address deleted]: ,-- [ no msg id ;-)) ] | Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] '-- These are not the real mail addresses but you know what I mean. Nevertheless: I never received any spam with my list-addresses but with others. Not even those addresses which are uploaded on the keyservers with my various PGP-keys received any spam. This may be an indication that concealing the address the way MHonarc does it could be sufficient P.S.: I deleted the domains in the above examples to avoid further possible discussion why I published John's address. -- Best regards, Gerd === Tutorial for using regular expressions with TheBat! www.regenechsen.de --- A user-friendly computer first requires a friendly user. --- now playing: WDR2 :-) Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
DEAD HORSE (was Automated response(?))
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Csaba, @13-Jun-2003, 20:30 +0200 (19:30 UK time) Csaba Kiss [CK] in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said MA C'Mon folks! Grow up! Have a dialog!... CK I hate flame-wars just as much you do. But you provoke it ... moderator Note: This moderator's interjection is a note to all readers and not just to the person being replied to, even if their post may have instigated this reply. Please don't feel singled out Csaba. This topic has gone way off / too long and I am forced to pronounce it dead. Please take it off-list or to TBOT. For anyone unfamiliar with Dead Horse policy, DEAD means DEAD. NO REPLIES to the list, only off-list or on TBOT. Thank you. /moderator It's a shame that people had to start debating the words used instead of the issues. It was a good topic with serious scope. - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v1.63 Beta/11 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. iQA/AwUBPuobsTnkJKuSnc2gEQKmnACeI7Cb72uPFbslg+JUZD3Fe+99EjwAoIKb JfHEBx3SLCAqv/sylfk2cIzS =ULiE -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Automated response(?)
Hello Csaba, Friday, June 13, 2003, 1:30:22 PM, you wrote: HMTL mail is here and will stay whatever you declare and even if you were there at the creation of e-mail. Life changes and evolves. E-mail is changing into html. I am glad you can't do anything about it. The fact that it is happening does not make it good or acceptable. Nor does it mean that I have to grant my unlimited stamp of approval to it. I don't use it usually. But sometimes if I need it I use it to enhance my mails. I make few exceptions for HTML email. It's too bad that Outhouse and Outhouse Express have convinced the uninformed masses that HTML email is a good thing and that emails with hideous colors and fonts are good things. However it's even more appalling when someone who should know better uses HTML email. Try to be a little bit more open-minded. People might get to like you. Was this really necessary? I realize that I'm often less civil than I should be, but personal comments like this have no place in this discussion. -- Dave Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: A Useful spam filter
Hello Mike, Friday, June 13, 2003, 1:40:52 PM, you wrote: Sorry Dave. I view dictionaries, as the late lexicographer David P. Guralnick said Dictionaries are historical documents, recording where a language was at the time it went to print (or words to that effect. The great Ambrose Bierce had yet another definition of the dictionary as A malevolent literary device which makes a language hard and in-elastic. What I am leading up to, is that I reject your definition of spam. Spam is a personal thing and we are dealing in semantics here. You don't want all HTML to be viewed as Spam. I do. Point taken. I've often said that words are no more than what we make them. But on the other hand, doesn't communication require commonly accepted definitions of what words mean? How can I communicate with someone if every word I use has a different meaning to me than it does to the other person? I guess that's a question for another discussion altogether! You said above You don't want all HTML to be viewed as Spam. I do. In my word games sentence, I said I guess we could refer to anything we feel like as 'spam'. We're saying the same thing, aren't we? I could say that my cat is a dog because my definition of dogs includes cats, but I probably wouldn't find very many people to agree with me. -- Dave Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: DEAD HORSE (was Automated response(?))
Hello Marck, Friday, June 13, 2003, 1:44:54 PM, you wrote: DEAD means DEAD. Sorry, Marck, I sent my last reply before I got as far as your proclamation. No disrespect intended. -- Dave Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Spam mistery!
Hello, I have just recieved a spam mail that sneaked thorugh K9. I have never seen anything like it. It contained a single sentence: I heard the shower going and saw her clothes laying on the floor , when I peeked in . I got my courage up an click here to unsubscribe. When I looked at the source, I saw this: !-- ] --I!-- ] -- !-- ] --h!-- ] --!-- ] --e!-- ] --a!-- PDqXVQp --r!-- ] --d !-- ] --t!-- ] --h!-- ] --e!-- ] -- !-- 508 --s!-- ] --!-- ] --h!-- mQdHTpT --o!-- ] --w!-- ] --e!-- ] --r go!-- deCyGkB --i!-- ] --n!-- ] --g !-- ] --a!-- ] --n!-- ] --d!-- 890 -- !-- ] --s!-- TwzNZpv --!-- ] --a!-- lvldYDa --!-- ] --!-- ] --w!-- UvqtmuO -- h!-- VKxYPaw --!-- ] --!-- ] --e!-- ] --r!-- wkYpTxf -- c!-- ] --l!-- ] --o!-- ] --t!-- ] --h!-- ] --e!-- ] --s!-- 090755 -- l!-- ] --a!-- ] --y!-- ] --i!-- ] --n!-- ] --g!-- ] -- !-- 640188 --on the flo!-- ] --o!-- ] --r!-- ] -- ,!-- ] -- w!-- ] --h!-- ] --en I!-- 529775 -- p!-- ] --e!-- HMAUtMX --ek!-- hqYbMoj --ed in . I got my!-- 084 -- !-- ] --c!-- ] --o!-- ] --u!-- ] --r!-- ] --a!-- ] --g!-- ] --e !-- ] --u!-- ] --p!-- ] -- !-- ] --a!-- ] --n a href=http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/fsw/remcli!-- tBjD --ck he!-- qciQ --re t!-- qnmg --o un!-- lXjkZaJ --s!-- DyUW --u!-- AyuP --b!-- ytdh --s!-- BErfV --cr!-- unMK --ibe/a. What kind of encryption is that? Can someone tell me what this is? -- Best regards, Csaba Kiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] MTC Karolinska Institute Stockholm, Sweden mobile:+46739891279 tel:+4687286259 fax:+468330498 ICQ:7911383 _ This message was created at 9:24:04 PM, on Friday, June 13, 2003, using !TheBat 1.63 Beta/11. Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re:Spam mistery!
Hello, CK What kind of encryption is that? Can someone tell me what this is? I solved it myself. These are only html comments with random letters. The sentence is scattered all over among the comments. -- Best regards, Csaba Kiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] mobile:+46739891279 tel:+4687286259 fax:+468330498 This message was created on Friday, June 13, 2003 using 1.63 Beta/11. Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Spam mistery!
Good evening Csaba Kiss ! On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 21:35:44 +0200 GMT your local time, which was 13.06.2003, 21:35 (GMT+0200) where I live, you (Csaba Kiss) wrote in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: I solved it myself. These are only html comments with random letters. The sentence is scattered all over among the comments. *gg* Not random ;-)) They make sense: copy the whole into a file, save it, named whateveryoulike.htm and open it with a browser: I heard the shower going and saw her clothes laying on the floor , when I peeked in . I got my courage up an click here to unsubscribe ^^^LINK^^^ *gg* ;-)) -- Best regards, Gerd === Tutorial for using regular expressions with TheBat! www.regenechsen.de --- Murphy's Gesetz: Konstruiere ein System, das selbst ein Irrer anwenden kann, und so wird es auch nur ein Irrer anwenden wollen. --- now playing: WDR2 :-) Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Filters and attachments
Is it possible to create filter rules that scan attachments? My question arises because of the daily barrage of bounced Klez mailings (you know the ones that originate from someone else, but supply your email as the From: ) I figured that, if I put yabbadabbado as my Organization, I could filter out all the bounced Klez mails, as they won't have yabbadabbado in the Organization field of the bounced mail. So I set up a filter to look for yabbadabbado Anywhere. But it apparently doesn't search in the attachments, because it misses legitimate bounced messages that do include all the original headers. -- Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: A Useful spam filter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mike Apsey, [MA] wrote: The era of 28k modems are over. Get on with it! I could not care less if a message is 1 kb or 10 kb, or God forbid 1 Mb. MA If your logic continues, very soon even the present internet MA infrastructure will be inadequate. moderator Note: This moderator's interjection is a note to all readers and not just to the person being replied to, even if their post may have instigated this reply. Please don't feel singled out Mike. This thread is no longer serving any productive purpose since it's now circular. Everyone seems to have expressed their opinions and feel quite strongly about it. Tempers also seem to be flaring and posts are taking on more and more of a personal tone. I ask that *any* further discussion on this thread be taken off list. This thread has been declared a DEAD HORSE. /moderator - -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator TB! v1.63 Beta/11 on WinXP Pro SP1 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: My Public Keys - http://www.ac-martin.com/pgpkeys.html iEYEARECAAYFAj7qWDwACgkQV8nrYCsHF+KCXQCfaoDAprbfJ3NsADoeYA/s5LDj bEoAn3sIBzg8FeQHUD1ap9GoxyjvBdqS =OcwX -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Folder template and to address
Hello, When I replied to a message on this list, I meant for it to go to the person, not the list. The reply contained an attachment and was caught before it was posted. I was sent a message telling what had happened and it included the statement Please don't use folder templates that set the To address. Use Address book templates unless absolutely vital not to. The only thing I changed in any templates was the wording, IIRC. So the above behavior must be the default setting. I don't understand what it is telling me to change though. Since this was a one time reply, I would have no reason to add this person to my address book so a template wouldn't apply. Or am I completely missing the point? Would someone explain to me what the statement means and how to fix it so this problem doesn't happen again? -- Jack EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home: http://home.twmi.rr.com/jyorktw/ ...Man who eat many prunes get good run for money. Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Folder template and to address
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Jack, @13-Jun-2003, 21:49 -0500 (03:49 UK time) Jack [J] in mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said J Please don't use folder templates that set the To address. Use J Address book templates unless absolutely vital not to. That was from me. J The only thing I changed in any templates was the wording, IIRC. J So the above behavior must be the default setting. Are you saying that if you have a folder for TBUDL messages, that the folder does *not* have a folder Template? J I don't understand what it is telling me to change though. I was saying that if you use a reply template in the folder for TBUDL messages which sets the To address of the message, then change it not to. J Since this was a one time reply, I would have no reason to add J this person to my address book so a template wouldn't apply. It's not about the person. It's about the TBUDL list. J Or am I completely missing the point? Would someone explain to me J what the statement means and how to fix it so this problem J doesn't happen again? If you have a TBUDL folder template, delete it. Instead, use a TBUDL address book entry. Then, when you want to send something to someone off-list, it will go there and not to the list. If you don't have a folder template, then this is irrelevant. In that case, you may need to learn the Ctrl-F4 keystroke (reply to sender - aka, reply off-list) and practice greater diligence when sending messages off-list in reply to an on-list posting. - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D Pearlstone -- List moderator TB! v1.63 Beta/11 on Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. iQA/AwUBPuqBCTnkJKuSnc2gEQJc+gCcDQBvj3Jrkme5qO2uLoIH1G23apYAn2gh l7wDwut3PxY1oxTWcZTDUnd9 =ovqT -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Folder template and to address
Hello, Friday, June 13, 2003, 8:57:10 PM, you wrote: MDP Hi Jack, J Please don't use folder templates that set the To address. Use J Address book templates unless absolutely vital not to. MDP That was from me. J The only thing I changed in any templates was the wording, IIRC. J So the above behavior must be the default setting. MDP Are you saying that if you have a folder for TBUDL messages, that MDP the folder does *not* have a folder Template? No, I'm saying I am confused about the templates and don't understand how to fix it. J I don't understand what it is telling me to change though. MDP I was saying that if you use a reply template in the folder for MDP TBUDL messages which sets the To address of the message, then MDP change it not to. I just checked. I do have a template for reply and at the top it has Hello %0FromFName. I changed this to just Hello and tried replying to a message. Didn't make a difference other than to remove the name following Hello. But I don't think this is what you mean by folder template and thus my confusion. J Or am I completely missing the point? Would someone explain to me J what the statement means and how to fix it so this problem J doesn't happen again? MDP If you have a TBUDL folder template, delete it. Instead, use a TBUDL MDP address book entry. Then, when you want to send something to someone MDP off-list, it will go there and not to the list. When I right click on a folder and choose properties, it that the folder template being displayed? I do have an entry for TB in the AB BTW. MDP If you don't have a folder template, then this is irrelevant. MDP In that case, you may need to learn the Ctrl-F4 keystroke (reply to MDP sender - aka, reply off-list) and practice greater diligence when MDP sending messages off-list in reply to an on-list posting. I suppose you are correct. The mailer I was using before gave the option of choosing where to reply to when reply was clicked. Guess I got spoiled. -- Jack EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home: http://home.twmi.rr.com/jyorktw/ ...EBonics Lesson #26: CATACOMB - Don King was at the fight the other night, Man, somebody give that catacomb. Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
