Re: Bat better than SpamKiller. Now

2002-05-15 Thread Marck D Pearlstone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi John, @14 May 2002, 15:13:48 -0700 (23:13 UK time) John Thomas wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] MDP>> I focus any spam anywhere and press Ctrl-Alt-S. ByeBye Spam! (I MDP>> copy this filter to all accounts). > How can I make this

Re[2]: Bat better than SpamKiller. Now

2002-05-14 Thread John Thomas
MDP> I focus any spam anywhere and press Ctrl-Alt-S. ByeBye Spam! (I MDP> copy this filter to all accounts). How can I make this work on common folders? For me, this does not seem to work on common folders. I filter messages to common folders. Spam ends up in an Inbox-UnKnown folder. When I cl

Re: Bat better than SpamKiller. Now

2002-05-07 Thread Paul Cartwright
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday, May 6, 2002, 3:03 PM, you wrote: Either I missed the answer, or I never saw the answer, could someone give me a hint on where to find the selective download filters ?? PC> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- PC> Hash: SHA1 PC> On Monday, M

Re: Bat better than SpamKiller. Now

2002-05-06 Thread GJim
Howdy Marck and the other Ladies and Gents on this list, Monday, May 6, 2002, 7:02:17 AM, you wrote: > Even more effective than that: Selective download filters! They > automate the process of eliminating spam without downloading any more > that the header. > Personally, I download the spam an

Re: Bat better than SpamKiller. Now

2002-05-06 Thread Allie C Martin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 John Galvin [JG] wrote: ... ACM>> Doesn't spamcop send you a corresponding message for each spam ACM>> report submitted so that you can send your messages to the ACM>> relevant sysadmin for the ISP involved? JG> Yes, for every email that I forward to

Re: Bat better than SpamKiller. Now

2002-05-06 Thread John Galvin
Hello Allie, Monday, May 6, 2002, 8:58:44 PM, you wrote: ACM> Doesn't spamcop send you a corresponding message for each spam report ACM> submitted so that you can send your messages to the relevant sysadmin ACM> for the ISP involved? Yes, for every email that I forward to them, they analyse the

Re: Bat better than SpamKiller. Now

2002-05-06 Thread Allie C Martin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 John Galvin [JG] wrote: ... JG> Speaking of spamcop, I myself forward email on to Spamcop. I have JG> set up a template on my Spam folder, so if i forward any emails JG> from that folder, it will automatically send it to my spamcop JG> email address,

Re: Bat better than SpamKiller. Now

2002-05-06 Thread Allie C Martin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Reclutamiento [R] wrote: ... R> Although Bat does not filter messages at the server nor at the R> entrance gate, it turns out that using Dispatch mail on Sever R> comand is far more efficient than using the www.spamkiller.com . Is it? Don't you have

Re: Bat better than SpamKiller. Now

2002-05-06 Thread Paul Cartwright
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday, May 6, 2002, 9:46 AM, you wrote: I use Mailwasher, but with the amount of mail I'm getting these days ( being on this list ;) Mailwasher is almost useless. It takes too long to download even the headers for over 100 messages a day, and del

Re: Bat better than SpamKiller. Now

2002-05-06 Thread Paul Cartwright
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday, May 6, 2002, 11:13 AM, you wrote: I saw the HELP description for selective download filters, but I can't figure out how to DO it. This sounds like a great idea!!! >> Would yo comment further on this???, please. MDP> "Selective download

Re: Bat better than SpamKiller. Now

2002-05-06 Thread John Galvin
Hello Michael, Monday, May 6, 2002, 5:40:43 PM, you wrote: MG> Just try Marck's filter - I did and it worked perfectly. (I guess the MG> Unix-Mbox Format did the trick -I tried with text-msg before - to no MG> avail) I did try Marcks filter, except i did what u did and tried the text-msg, and i

Re[2]: Bat better than SpamKiller. Now

2002-05-06 Thread Michael Geyer
Hi John On Montag, 6. Mai 2002 at 16:34:46GMT +0100 (which was 17:34 where I live) you wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at least in parts): > I still have the problem with html emails though. Just try Marck's filter - I did and it worked perfectly. (I guess the Unix-Mbox

Re: Bat better than SpamKiller. Now

2002-05-06 Thread John Galvin
Hello Marck, Monday, May 6, 2002, 4:12:39 PM, you wrote: MDP> I focus any spam anywhere and press Ctrl-Alt-S. ByeBye Spam! Thanks for that. Much easier than my way:-) I still have the problem with html emails though. Spamcop analyses the whole email, not just the headers. So if the email is adv

Re: Bat better than SpamKiller. Now

2002-05-06 Thread Marck D Pearlstone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi [EMAIL PROTECTED], @06 May 2002, 09:53:28 -0400 (14:53 UK time) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > "Even more effective than that: Selective download filters! They > automate the process of eliminating spam with

Re: Bat better than SpamKiller. Now

2002-05-06 Thread Marck D Pearlstone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi John, @06 May 2002, 14:46:03 +0100 John Galvin wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] MDP>> Personally, I download the spam and forward it to SpamCop. > ... I get a html email. I need to forward on the html code to keep > spamcop happ

Re[2]: Bat better than SpamKiller. Now

2002-05-06 Thread Michael T. Ashby
Marck, For those of us that are newbies, what does this filter do exactly? Michael Ashby Monday, May 6, 2002, 10:12:39 AM, you wrote: MDP> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- MDP> Hash: SHA1 MDP> Hi John, MDP> @06 May 2002, 14:46:03 +0100 John Galvin wrote in MDP> [EMAIL

Re: Bat better than SpamKiller. Now

2002-05-06 Thread Jonathan Angliss
On Monday, May 06, 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote... > Although Bat does not filter messages at the server nor at the > entrance gate, it turns out that using Dispatch mail on Sever comand > is far more efficient than using the www.spamkiller.com . > 1º The bat does the job of downloading the hea

Re: Bat better than SpamKiller. Now

2002-05-06 Thread John Galvin
Hello Marck, Monday, May 6, 2002, 2:02:17 PM, you wrote: MDP> Personally, I download the spam and forward it to SpamCop. Speaking of spamcop, I myself forward email on to Spamcop. I have set up a template on my Spam folder, so if i forward any emails from that folder, it will automatically send

Re[2]: Bat better than SpamKiller. Now

2002-05-06 Thread reclutamiento
"Even more effective than that: Selective download filters! They automate the process of eliminating spam without downloading any more that the header". --- Would yo comment further on this???, please. __ Running Bat v1.6

Re: Bat better than SpamKiller. Now

2002-05-06 Thread Marck D Pearlstone
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi [EMAIL PROTECTED], @06 May 2002, 08:59:37 -0400 (13:59 UK time) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Although Bat does not filter messages at the server nor at the > entrance gate, it turns out that using Dispatch

Bat better than SpamKiller. Now

2002-05-06 Thread reclutamiento
Although Bat does not filter messages at the server nor at the entrance gate, it turns out that using Dispatch mail on Sever comand is far more efficient than using the www.spamkiller.com . 1º The bat does the job of downloading the headers in a ratio of 100 to 1 faster. 2º The Bat does not d