Re: Re[2]: Proposal for spam filters
Hello Steve. --On 18 May 2005 22:21 +0100 you wrote about Re[2]: Proposal for spam filters: I use Spamcop and can only whitelist senders not receivers and the sender is yourself not the bat. In that case may I suggest http://www.firetrust.com/ -- Tony. M. pgpyNHfY2S1CE.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.5 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Re[2]: Proposal for spam filters
Hello Steve. --On 18 May 2005 22:21 +0100 you wrote about Re[2]: Proposal for spam filters: I use Spamcop and can only whitelist senders not receivers and the sender is yourself not the bat. I just visited the Spamcop web site, I clicked the Download Trial link and it took me to the Mailwasher Pro download page. Now from what I can gather Spamcop is not a software program, it's a company or service where you report spam to. I use it myself with Mailwasher Pro and if I click the report box for any spam I get that they don't already know about it's Spamcop that it's reported to. If it was a spam filtering program I doubt they'd direct people to a competitors download page. Correct me if I'm wrong but Spamcop is not Spam trapping software, it's just a place to report it to? See attached for a complete description as to exactly what Spamcop is. If so, what actual software do you use to trap spam in the first place? Like I said I use Spamcop myself, I just didn't know it. Mailwasher Pro does such a good job I don't even know it's there half the time. -- Tony. M. pgpOBg0J4pwFn.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.5 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Proposal for spam filters
I think you'll find that was Tony's typo. His description is of spamcop.net. Not if Mailwasher is involved it wasn't. Spamcop (as in spamcop.net) has no association with Mailwasher whatsoever that I am aware of. Spamcop do filter spam for you, but only if you use a spamcop.net email address, which you are not doing, so it's not that. Now you are talking about the correct Spamcop and yes I do use their email service and thus their filtering and find it excellent. -- Best wishes, Steve Lee http://jumbocruiser.com Tel +44 7768 211612 Current version is 3.5 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Proposal for spam filters
How odd, you gave the impression you used it all the time for allowing certain addresses through that were wrongly classified as spam? Isn't that why you wanted a [TAG] in the subject line, to make it easier for you to enter those addresses into your spamcop whitelist? No Tony that was me not Marck. Spamcop never deletes my filtered emails (the spams) but holds them for me to inspect and either report and delete or move to my inbox. I wanted the tags as experiences with falsely held emails from the SWREG Yahoogroup had shown that with such tags so I can easily spot them when I scan the listings of such held emails (and avoid falsely reporting spam). -- Best wishes, Steve Lee http://jumbocruiser.com Tel +44 7768 211612 Current version is 3.5 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Proposal for spam filters
I quite like the idea of that for 16 quid a year, what do you think? I have used them commercially for a few years and find it is a great system. You have a certain level of tweaking to adjust the balance between false reporting and getting too many spams. Until I joined this group (and it will settle down) I had usually 1 or 2 spams and maybe 1 false report out of 500 genuine spams. -- Best wishes, Steve Lee http://jumbocruiser.com Tel +44 7768 211612 Current version is 3.5 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Re[2]: Proposal for spam filters
Hello Steve. --On 19 May 2005 13:04 +0100 you wrote about Re[2]: Proposal for spam filters: Until I joined this group (and it will settle down) I had usually 1 or 2 spams and maybe 1 false report out of 500 genuine spams. I might give that a go I think. Am I right in thinking I can use it for an NTL account and then forward all that to my boomclan account? It's my NTL account I get most spam in, dozens and dozens of them. That's why I don't use it anymore. I did try forgetting about it and leaving the spam to pile up, but as soon as it gets full I get one message from NTL for every spam message I get telling me it's full and that's even more annoying than the spam. -- Tony. M. pgpFO5HlJY0GX.pgp Description: PGP signature Current version is 3.5 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Proposal for spam filters
You should think about your antispam solution if its dependent on a subject tag to work reliably. It is not the anti-spam solution that requires the subject tag, it is to make it easier to manually scan for trapped (false positive) messages so they can be identified and the sender whitelisted. -- Best wishes, Steve Lee http://jumbocruiser.com Tel +44 7768 211612 Current version is 3.5 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Proposal for spam filters
the idea might sound simple and great, iow really efficient, BUT: what prevents spam from being sent with exactly this phrase in the subject? We use Yahoo Groups for the SWREG mailing list and every email that Yahoo Groups sends out has [SWREG] inserted at the beginning of every message subject field. On the odd occasion when one of these messages is trapped at Spamcop it is really easy to spot so that I do not accidentally report the sender for spamming and whitelist him so I can receive future emails sent by that sender. To date I have ever seen a spam with [SWREG] at the beginning and do not expect to in reality. -- Best wishes, Steve Lee http://jumbocruiser.com Tel +44 7768 211612 Current version is 3.5 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Proposal for spam filters
The best way to not falsely identify mails on this list as spam is to match the Return-Path against received lines, because all this lists mail have a Return-Path of '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' and are coming from '62.80.28.8' which identifies itself as 'draenor.its-toasted.org'. You are assuming I am using TB or a plug in to do spam filtering. Personally I do not even wish to download spams or viruses in the first place which is why I have server side filtering via Spamcop (which also includes Spam Assassin but I can not control their copy of course). -- Best wishes, Steve Lee http://jumbocruiser.com Tel +44 7768 211612 Current version is 3.5 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Re[2]: Proposal for spam filters
On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:45:21 +0200, Steve Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You should think about your antispam solution if its dependent on a subject tag to work reliably. It is not the anti-spam solution that requires the subject tag, it is to make it easier to manually scan for trapped (false positive) messages so they can be identified and the sender whitelisted. But then again, the antispam solution you're using shouldn't catch on TBUDlist messages... if it does, it would be interesting to see which parameter raises the spam probability level of a list message - and correct that error of the spam filter. [I know why I turned every server side spam filtering OFF - you can never be sure what it does if you don't have full control over the set of rules] -- Gruesse / Greetings, Alexander Kunz Current version is 3.5 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Proposal for spam filters
Like I said before, spam very, very rarely gets to these lists so why not just add the complete domain @thebat.dutaint.com to your whitelist? T I use Spamcop and can only whitelist senders not receivers and the sender is yourself not the bat. -- Best wishes, Steve Lee http://jumbocruiser.com Tel +44 7768 211612 Current version is 3.5 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Proposal for spam filters
Well, the Sender of the list messages, according to the headers I'm seeing, is Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED], while the From field has the address of the message author. In which case my word useage is wrong. I can only whitelist 'from' addresses I guess. -- Best wishes, Steve Lee http://jumbocruiser.com Tel +44 7768 211612 Current version is 3.5 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
