Re: Again, why only TB built-in filters are enough to fight all sorts of SPAM

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 ***^\ ."_)~~ ~( __ _"o Was another beautiful day, Sat, 19 Feb 2005, @ @ at 20:11:40 +0100, when Alexander S. Kunz wrote: > Hello Mica Mijatovic & everyone else, > on 19-Feb-2005 at 18:01 you (Mica Mijatovic) wrote: >> Filter again

Re: (no subject) Re: TB & GnuPG

Hi On Friday 18 February 2005 at 8:02:16 PM, in , Alexander S. Kunz wrote: >> Let's see how it behaves regarding the sig delimiter. I think you would have to inline sign, not PGP/MIME for the sig delimiter to be affected. > Much better if you ask me, because its PGP/MIME

Re: (no subject) Re: TB & GnuPG

Hi On Friday 18 February 2005 at 8:54:23 PM, in , David Calvarese wrote: > My only real issue with buying it is that I need to use it on 2 > PCs. my work PC (for personal email) and my home PC (for the > same). But I'm only ever going to be signing on one at a time. As fa

Re: Again, why only TB built-in filters are enough to fight all sorts of SPAM

Hello Mica Mijatovic & everyone else, on 19-Feb-2005 at 18:01 you (Mica Mijatovic) wrote: > Filter against what you *accept*/receive, > not against what you do *not*. (-: Isn't that exactly what you do when you train a(ny) Bayes filter? -- Best regards, Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - IC

Again, why only TB built-in filters are enough to fight all sorts of SPAM

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Just few thoughts about anti-spam strategy, before I forget it... Cringely, Info World : < once just before breakfast <>o<> [Earth LOG: 171 day(s) since v3.0 unleashing] OS: Windows 98 SE Micro Lite Prof

Re: "Pretending" to use The Bat!

Hello Alexander, Saturday, February 19, 2005, 3:08:08 PM, you wrote: ASK> The ASK> point is that a totally legit message created with TB v3.0.2.10 or 3.0.1.33 ASK> will get a spam rating from SA because of the wrong "FORGED_MUA_THEBAT" ASK> problem, so I'm back to my statement that they shouldn'

Re: "Pretending" to use The Bat!

Hello Thomas Fernandez & everyone else, on 19-Feb-2005 at 13:53 you (Thomas Fernandez) wrote: > The faked X-Mailer a spam software created was a TB version, but there > was another header in those mails that wold be created only by Outlook, > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal. That's how the faked X-Mail

Re: "Pretending" to use The Bat!

Hello Alexander, On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:03:08 +0100 GMT (19/02/2005, 16:03 +0700 GMT), Alexander S. Kunz wrote: ASK> Everyone can fake the X-Mailer header so that it contains the ASK> identification of a genuine mail program. The spam I get claims to be (or ASK> is) written with Microsoft Outlook

Re: "Pretending" to use The Bat!

Hello Robin, > Well, so am I. But to prevent possible problems such as you encounter, I > disguise my mailer slightly - see my X-mailer header. Actually, I use > one of a list of 21 equivalents to The Bat! in a variety of languages. But that is still like hiding part of my identity and I don't se

Re: "Pretending" to use The Bat!

Hello Mica, > <%COMMENT="This is The Bat!, (wo)man. :tbflag: Accept this fact, leave > this message alone (virgo intacta) and live in peace."> I think I'm going to do something like that. Great Idea! :-) > But I doubt that anyone could talk effectively with an administrator, or > even anti-spam

Re: "Pretending" to use The Bat!

Hello Roman Katzer & everyone else, on 19-Feb-2005 at 05:40 you (Roman Katzer) wrote: >> Interesting. This SpamAssassin must really be badly maintained. > Actually, it's pretty well maintained Everyone can fake the X-Mailer header so that it contains the identification of a genuine mail program