Re: Configure TB with PopFile on IMAP email accounts?
Hello Clive, Wednesday, July 16, 2003, Clive Taylor wrote: GS>> Can you only use PopFile on POP email accounts? > Um, yes. That's why it's called POPfile :). What I thought. > I wish it would support IMAP, though. Would be nice. -- 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:Configure TB with PopFile on IMAP email accounts?
Hello Greg, Wednesday, July 16, 2003, 5:51:34 AM, you wrote: GS> Can you only use PopFile on POP email accounts? Um, yes. That's why it's called POPfile :). I wish it would support IMAP, though. -- regards Clive Taylor Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Mozilla and The Bat!
Thanks for the email Marek.
I don't have this file! I'm using Mozilla 1.3.1, and have checked
all the directories I can see...
Thanks
Joseph
On 14/07/2003 at 7:45 a.m., Marek Mikus wrote:
MM> Hello all,
MM> Sunday, July 13, 2003, Joseph wrote:
>> Hi all - I'm using Mozilla, and haven't been able to get it to
>> use The Bat! for email links. Every time I click an email link in
>> Mozilla, it opens the Mozilla Mail application.
MM> AFAIK, this is only possible by manual editation of "user.js" file in
MM> Mozilla directory. Close Mozilla and add following row to it:
MM> user_pref("network.protocol-handler.external.mailto", true);
MM> Then check "mailto:"; option in The Bat!'s preferences dialog and hit
MM> "Associate now" button and Mozilla should use The Bat! for mailto now.
Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Configure TB with PopFile on IMAP email accounts?
Hello TBUDL, How do you configure TB &/or PopFile on IMAP email accounts? Can you only use PopFile on POP email accounts? Specifically I was using the IMAP4 protocol setting in TB. I don't want to start a big thing about what is best for spam. All I want is a simple answer on TB, PopFile, & IMAP email accounts. TIA! -- 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: SMTP authentication problem
Hello Omar, On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:46:11 -0300 (Hora padrão leste da Am. Sul) GMT (16/07/03, 09:46 +0700 GMT), Omar Colocci wrote: > The main difference I notice is that my ISP (works) uses a simple username > for the servers' login: "omarsc" for the email [EMAIL PROTECTED] The webhost > s server require the full email address as username login. Both offer the > same step by step tutorial for Outlook Express configuration, but the > webhost returns the message "child crashed (#4.3.0)". When I disable the > authentication it returns "Sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed > rcpthosts (#5.7.1)". My idea is that you post the OE configuration tutorial here, and we "translate" it into TB. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. In an office: WOULD THE PERSON WHO TOOK THE STEP LADDER YESTERDAY PLEASE BRING IT BACK OR FURTHER STEPS WILL BE TAKEN. Message reply created with The Bat! 1.63 Beta/5 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: SMTP authentication problem
Hello Omar and other TB! listers following this thread, On Tuesday, July 15, 2003 at exactly 9:46:11 PM, Omar wrote about "SMTP authentication problem" and said the following: OC> I have two email accounts. One if of my ISP and the other from OC> my webhost using my domain name. Both of them require SMTP OC> authentication, and the ISP works fine with The Bat! but not the OC> webhost's server. Is it designed to work with email clients also? OC> Weird is that I moved from another webhost that also required OC> SMTP authentication and faced the same problem, reason why I had OC> to move to Outlook Express (ouch!). OC> The main difference I notice is that my ISP (works) uses a OC> simple username for the servers' login: "omarsc" for the email OC> [EMAIL PROTECTED] The webhost s server require the full email OC> address as username login. Both offer the same step by step OC> tutorial for Outlook Express configuration, but the webhost OC> returns the message "child crashed (#4.3.0)". When I disable the OC> authentication it returns "Sorry, that domain isn't in my list OC> of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)". Does it require "pop before smtp"? OC> What, in the name of the Gods, may it be?? You may have to talk to whoever's in charge of the website's email server. OC> Please, help me getting back to my "decent" email client You probably noticed that TB! provides a number of options when configuring smtp authentication. Go to account properties / transport and put the smtp server's address in place, as well as the type of connection, regular or one of two types of secure connection, as well as the port to be used. Then, clicking on authentication, you'll find smtp authentication rfc 2554 and "use pop before smtp authentication". You might need one or the other or both. When using the first, you have another three choices. Curiously, I too have a similar problem which I'll throw out for the list to chew on. Yesterday I opened two new free email accounts, both of which are 15 mb and work with email clients like TB! and both require authentication. One of the two is Russian and even shows a link for configuring The Bat! - although the link doesn't work. I got the imap / pop server to download my mail but had to use my myrealbox server to send with, for now. On the other account the opposite occurred. I was able to send mail with it but not receive - which is rather odd considering I used "pop before smpt authentication", and used the same login data I used to access my mail on their website I mention their urls in case anyone wants to take a look and maybe open an account, since 15 mb is more than most provide. Registration with the first is easy while the second requires a lot of detailed information, which it sometimes rejects - I'll bet it's in the USA. In any case, I wrote both for support on this issue (and gawab sent back an automated response telling me that the support address given on their website doesn't exist - par for the course). It nevertheless sent me a FAQ. I can use another good account or two, since only 6 of the original 16 free accounts I actually used are working well, with only 3 mail servers. -- Douglas Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
SMTP authentication problem
I folks! I know that probably many variations of such problem had appeared on this list, since I've searched the archive for an answer before writing, but nothing as specific as my problem. I have two email accounts. One if of my ISP and the other from my webhost using my domain name. Both of them require SMTP authentication, and the ISP works fine with The Bat! but not the webhost's server. Weird is that I moved from another webhost that also required SMTP authentication and faced the same problem, reason why I had to move to Outlook Express (ouch!). The main difference I notice is that my ISP (works) uses a simple username for the servers' login: "omarsc" for the email [EMAIL PROTECTED] The webhost s server require the full email address as username login. Both offer the same step by step tutorial for Outlook Express configuration, but the webhost returns the message "child crashed (#4.3.0)". When I disable the authentication it returns "Sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1)". What, in the name of the Gods, may it be?? Please, help me getting back to my "decent" email client Regards, Omar Colocci [EMAIL PROTECTED] Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Cost Effective TB Backup!
Hello Bill, Tuesday, July 15, 2003, Bill McCarthy wrote: > :: And now display the results in my editor What is the size of the source files you are backing up, and how long is it taking? I have been using 7-Zip for 6 months manually with the GUI. Now with investigating the command line capability I would say a very useful compression utility for me. After looking at your reply, you have obviously taken further. Thanks for the insightful replies. -- 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: Cost Effective TB Backup!
On Tue 15-Jul-03 7:07pm -0400, Greg Strong wrote: > Tuesday, July 15, 2003, Bill McCarthy wrote: >> So don't specify a new archive and p0q0 is equivalent to p1q1. > NO, not when you consider what my INTENT on the backup was. See > mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] My test the other day must have been wrong. After reading your post I tried it again and can confirm that using the -up0q0 option does indeed remove files from the archive when are no longer present on disk. This is frequently desirable, so I've added an alias for update with deletion (7ud) along with with my update (7u) alias: alias 7u=c:\util\7-Zip\7zn u -ms=off alias 7ud=c:\util\7-Zip\7zn u -ms=off -up0q0 Here's my backup file (tbbu.btm) for 4nt: :: I've not shown the part which checks to see if The Bat! is running :: or if the data state is for the Beta. In either case, a dialog is :: displayed and the batch file terminates without doing anything. :: :: Note: Common.7z contains my templates and those QTs not invoked :: with :: :: The only 4nt stuff is the use of a timer, >>& (appends the :: redirected stdin and stderr in the order they would appear on the :: display) and unset (same as set var=). timer /3 on > nul set bu=f:\TheBatBU :: First the registry echo Backing up the RIT registry tree > %bu\out regedit /e %bu\RIT.reg HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\RIT >>& %bu\out :: Now the Program Directory pushd c:\progra~1\thebat~1 7ud -r %bu\TBprog * >>& %bu\out :: Finally the Mail Stores cd \data\TheBat 7ud %bu\Common * -x!Mail -x!Beta >>& %bu\out cd Mail 7ud -r %bu\Gild * >>& %bu\out cd ..\Beta 7ud -r %bu\Beta * >>& %bu\out popd :: Show the elapsed time timer /3 >>& %bu\out :: And now display the results in my editor v %bu\out unset bu -- Best regards, Bill Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Cost Effective TB Backup!
Hello Bill, Tuesday, July 15, 2003, Bill McCarthy wrote: > So don't specify a new archive and p0q0 is equivalent to p1q1. NO, not when you consider what my INTENT on the backup was. See mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ,- [ Quote: ] | I wanted to address the possibilities with the INTENT of keeping my | backup the same as what I had on disk. `- I've placed 2 batch files below my signature which I ran a test switching the p & q states. They were basically identical except my original p0q0 was changed to p1q1. The tests and results are as follows: move "X:\Program Files\The Bat!\*" to "X:\Program Files\Test\Test\The Bat!\*" move "X:\AppsBase\MAIL\*" to "X:\AppsBase\Test\MAIL\*" From command window ran TBz2.bat Result of running TBz2.bat was files of same size as original when NOTHING was there. This doesn't follow my INTENT which was to create a backup of what was on disk. The file sizes should be VERY small, since NO directory exists and no files would have been found. Without changing any locations after the moves indicated above I ran TBz.bat Results of running TBz.bat was files which were SMALL. This DOES follow my INTENT which was to create backup of what was on disk. Looking at the contents with 7-Zip there were NO files in the 7z files. So when considering my INTENT I'll leave my states of p & q the way they were with p0q0. I'll switch to using "7zn.exe" because of your statement using it on RAR files. I might as well get use to it because it could become very useful. -- Best regards, Greg Strong TB! v1.63 Beta/11 on Windows XP Service Pack 1 ,- [ TBz.bat file ] | @Echo off | | Echo | Echo * !! Updating Backup Archive of TB-Mail!! * | Echo * (Program is X:\TBArchives\tbPgm7z.7z)* | Echo * (Mail Base is X:\TBArchives\tbMail7z.7z) * | Echo | | Path C:\Windows;C:\Program Files\7-ZIP | | regedit /e "x:\TBArchives\tbregNew7z.reg" hkey_current_user\software\rit | | 7za u -ms=off x:\TBArchives\tbPgm7z.7z -up0q0r2x1y2z1w2 "Program Files\The Bat!\*" -r | | 7za u -ms=off x:\TBArchives\tbMail7z.7z -up0q0r2x1y2z1w2 "AppsBase\MAIL\*" -r `- ,- [ TBz2.bat file ] | @Echo off | | Echo | Echo * !! Updating Backup Archive of TB-Mail!! * | Echo * (Program is X:\TBArchives\tbPgm7z.7z)* | Echo * (Mail Base is X:\TBArchives\tbMail7z.7z) * | Echo | | Path C:\Windows;C:\Program Files\7-ZIP | | regedit /e "x:\TBArchives\tbregNew7z.reg" hkey_current_user\software\rit | | 7za u -ms=off x:\TBArchives\tbPgm7z.7z -up1q1r2x1y2z1w2 "Program Files\The Bat!\*" -r | | 7za u -ms=off x:\TBArchives\tbMail7z.7z -up1q1r2x1y2z1w2 "AppsBase\MAIL\*" -r `- Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering - SpamPal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 John Morse, [JM] wrote: JM> whoops I thought you were saying that it didn't work. JM> I see you said "not because it didn't work" JM> My Appologies! 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 John. Leif already interjected that this thread be stopped. It's becoming a high traffic thread with very little useful returns at this juncture. We've already heard that SpamPal and POPFile seem to work well for members on this list. It's time to wrap it up here and move on, or take any further discussion off list. This thread has now been declared DEAD . as in DEAD HORSE!! Thank you. - -- -= allie_M =- | List Moderator _ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP SDK 3.0.2 iQA/AwUBPxR4EVfJ62ArBxfiEQICxACdGizp5iEHll4HvwpFSdW1UyZsrE4AoLIg Uz8BEkr4nQaew45PbOF4fL4Q =lbPH -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering - SpamPal
Hello John, you wrote: >> well, I just got rid of spampal, not because it didn't work > LOL, yeaH right > I guess not all software is idiot-proof whoops I thought you were saying that it didn't work. I see you said "not because it didn't work" My Appologies! -- John Morse pagemaker -at- semo -dot- net Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering
Hello MikeD, you wrote: > The problem with 'black lists' is that inevitably there are a lot of > people on them that should not be. Did you know that you can "un-check" this feature from SpamPal if you do not wish to use it? -- John Morse pagemaker -at- semo -dot- net Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering - SpamPal
Hello Paul, you wrote: > well, I just got rid of spampal, not because it didn't work LOL, yeaH right I guess not all software is idiot-proof -- John Morse pagemaker -at- semo -dot- net Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[3]: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering
Hello Terry, you wrote: > And, at 99% + accuracy, Popfile makes it really easy for me to stick > to my principles. :) This is always the main point that Popfile users stick too. I too (although losing many "good" emails) was assured by Popfile itself that it was doing such a good job why it kept telling me that it was doing better than 98% accuracy. LOL I wonder how many would stay with Popfile if they done away with this most inaccurate part of the program? -- John Morse pagemaker -at- semo -dot- net Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering - SpamPal
Hello MAU, you wrote: > Can I say that I doubt it? :-) Yes, you can, but have you tried SpamPal? I can honestly say I have used both! And Popfile's stats will fool you, believe me I know, I used Popfile. Popfile uses only Bayesian, SpamPal uses a combination of effective spam fighting techniques. SpamPal is still the best! -- John Morse pagemaker -at- semo -dot- net Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Cost Effective TB Backup!
On Tue 15-Jul-03 1:08am -0400, Greg Strong wrote: > Monday, July 14, 2003, Bill McCarthy wrote: >>> 7za u -ms=off x:\TBArchives\tbMail7z.7z -up0q0r2x1y2z1w2 >>> "AppsBase\MAIL\*" -r >> Why use 7za? From the manual, "7zn.exe and 7zan.exe are optimized >> versions of 7z.exe and 7za.exe for execution on Windows NT/2000/XP." >> Aren't you running XP? > Yes. I had numerous problems initially with the switches. The problem I > had was I didn't use the "ms=off" switch which is necessary with the > "7z" format for better compression. You've got that a bit backwards :-) Turning solid on gives the best compression ratio. However, you can't update solids. With solid turned on (the default), the compression is based on the entire input as a big stream. With solid turned off, compression is based on each files contents. If you want to use the update feature, solid must be turned off - the compression isn't quite as good, but update is now possible. So if you just want the best compression and don't need to update it, don't use the -m switch. > When I got it to work it was with the 7za. I decide not to use 7zn > or 7zan because according to help '7za.exe is a standalone version > of 7-Zip. 7za.exe supports only 7z, zip, gzip, bzip2 and tar > formats. 7za.exe doesn't use other modules." You've almost got that right. But 7z and 7za are for Win 9x/ME. The 7zn and 7zan are optimized for Win NT/2K/XP. With your (and my) XP, you want to use either 7zn or 7zan. I use 7zn because it's more general (I can unrar with it, for example, by typing `7zn e tb163b11.rar`). Also, I don't notice any speed degradation using 7zn (in comparison with 7zan). > Did you try "7zn.exe" or 7zan.exe"? Well yes as mentioned above. Also I wrote, in the message to which you are replying, that "7z is aliased to 7zn." Perhaps my use of "alias" has caused some confusion. In 4NT, I could write: alias 7z=c:\util\7-Zip\7zn Also for the updates, file manager and the help file, I have: alias 7u=c:\util\7-Zip\7zn u -ms=off alias 7f=c:\util\7-Zip\7zFMn alias 7h=c:\util\7-Zip\7-Zip.chm If you're using CMD, which I'm not too familiar, you could probably do something similar with: doskey 7z=c:\util\7-Zip\7zn doskey 7u=c:\util\7-Zip\7zn u -ms=off doskey 7f=c:\util\7-Zip\7zFMn doskey 7h=c:\util\7-Zip\7-Zip.chm So Yes, I'm using 7zn as I said in the original message. And yes, I've tried out 7zan, but I've noticed no speed increase and it's less general than using 7zan. [For anyone reading this that uses Win 9x/ME, substitute 7z for 7zn and 7za for 7zan.] >> Also, why the -u? All are set to the defaults except you ignore your >> p's and q's :-) > According to the help topic "-u (Update options) switch" see the default > for "Update" command. I wanted to address the possibilities with the > INTENT of keeping my backup the same as what I had on disk. > Update default: p1q1r2x1y2z1w2 > Update my set:-up0q0r2x1y2z1w2 > I'm using a wildcard so the differences are as follows: > file in archive not matched with wildcard (p) - default copy file from old archive > to new > - mine doesn't copy file to new > archive Right! Since you're not using a new archive, whether you use p0 or p1 is irrelevant. > file in archive is not on disk (q) - default copy file from old archive to new > - mine doesn't copy file to new archive Ditto for q0 vs q1 >> The default setting of p1q1 does the same thing when a new '!' archive >> isn't specified - doesn't it? > Yes the way I understand it. I specified a new name for the archive and > was successful using the "Zip" format, but it just made for more work > because I wanted one set of files. So don't specify a new archive and p0q0 is equivalent to p1q1. If you want the effect of p0q0, then you must include a new archive. For example, suppose you have files a, b and c in a directory. You archive them with, say, 7zn a -ms=off c:\arc1 * Now touch a and delete c. You could now do: 7zn u -ms-off -up0q0!c:\arc2 c:\arc1 * Now arc1.7z has b, c and updated a. arc2.7z has b and updated a but no c. So if you removed files and don't want them in the archive, you could manually delete them from the archive OR use the approach I've used and replace the old archive with the new archive. -- Best regards, Bill Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering
Hello neurowerx, Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 2:32:42 PM, you wrote: nwd> 15-Jul-2003 21:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I don't know about other Bayesian filters but for POPFile, for example >> IP addresses are just "words" that it can use to classify messages. And >> it sure does learn and use IP lists. nwd> Good point. However, I believe that DNS blacklists are updated faster than nwd> popfile will "learn" IP addresses when you teach them manually. The problem with 'black lists' is that inevitably there are a lot of people on them that should not be. I maintain a list server and I can tell you that several of us (I talk with other list managers) get black listed every other month or so for various reasons, but mostly because the list maintainers do not do "due diligence" when someone says they got spamed from such and so address. So I will never use a black list to determine spam. So far I am still trying to get something bayesian that will work for me. I have hopes for the new bayesian plug-in for TB. -- Best regards, MikeDmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! v1.63 Beta/7 on Windows ME 4.90 Build 3000 Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering
Hello Terry, Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 2:03:03 PM, you wrote: T> I use Popfile alone because it *doesn't* use DNS blacklists. I have T> philosophical issues with DNS blacklists. And, at 99% + accuracy, T> Popfile makes it really easy for me to stick to my principles. :) This is not directed at Terry, but the thread in general. We're kinda getting OT with this thread. Please move it to TBOT. Thanks. -- Leif (TB list moderator and fellow end user). Using The Bat! 1.63 Beta/10 under Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 on a Pentium 4 2GHz with 512MB Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering - SpamPal
On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 4:19 PM, you wrote: nwd> 15-Jul-2003 22:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> well, I just got rid of spampal, not because it didn't work, but because >> I finally noticed that the slowdown in receiving mail was only on the >> accounts that had spampal setup. Now I am back to getting my mail FAST. nwd> I'd say that depends on how frequently you receive mail from the same nwd> persons, and spampal has a chance to auto-whitelist the corresponding nwd> address. Mail retrieval is only slow for addresses that need to be checked nwd> against the DNSBLs. If you're received mail from "new" addresses all the nwd> time, it will be slow, and spampal is not the best solution, I agree. either I have my filters setup wrong, or all the lists I'm on make it so spampal DOES have to check, because mail always seemed slow. nwd> OTOH - I am on not on a dial-up connection and don't care whether my mail nwd> retrieval is fast or slow. In fact, I don't even notice it. Whether spampal nwd> takes 1 or 30 seconds to process a single email, TB just runs and nwd> periodically checks for mails, and when its there, its there. :-) I'm on cablemodem myself, but I don't keep TB running all the time, so when I fire it up, it does take some time to process the mail. I would constantly get mail with **SPAM** in the header, reply, and forget to take that out of the subject! -- Paul Using The Bat! v1.63 Beta/5 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: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering - SpamPal
15-Jul-2003 22:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > well, I just got rid of spampal, not because it didn't work, but because > I finally noticed that the slowdown in receiving mail was only on the > accounts that had spampal setup. Now I am back to getting my mail FAST. I'd say that depends on how frequently you receive mail from the same persons, and spampal has a chance to auto-whitelist the corresponding address. Mail retrieval is only slow for addresses that need to be checked against the DNSBLs. If you're received mail from "new" addresses all the time, it will be slow, and spampal is not the best solution, I agree. OTOH - I am on not on a dial-up connection and don't care whether my mail retrieval is fast or slow. In fact, I don't even notice it. Whether spampal takes 1 or 30 seconds to process a single email, TB just runs and periodically checks for mails, and when its there, its there. :-) -- Best regards, neurowerx (http://www.neurowerx.de) If there is hope for men, it is because we are animals. -- Robert Ardrey Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering
Hello Dave, > I've got the Known filter first. Sometimes people I want to get > e-mail from will send a note that has spam-like material in it. I > don't want to lose those messages. Loose messages No matter what method, program, filter, whatever, you use to detect spam you should not delete or trash spam (initially flagged as spam) messages until you somehow review them. There are always false positives and false negatives. Maybe very few, but there are. Anyway, if you put your Known filter first, you will see some spam messages "leaking through" as you say in your original post. -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v1.62i Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering
Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 2:28:47 PM, Dave Kennedy wrote: DK> Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 3:09:00 PM, MAU wrote: M>> Are you using any filter to sort messages classified as spam M>> by POPFile? If so, this filter should be placed _before_ the M>> Known filter. DK> I've got the Known filter first. Sometimes people I want to get DK> e-mail from will send a note that has spam-like material in it. I DK> don't want to lose those messages. ...but that defeats the purpose of "training material." Within popfile, one can create "magnets" to force a classification, or just let popfile work its mathemagic and train the email detection. WL DK> -- DK> Dave Kennedy DK> DK> Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: DK> http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering - SpamPal
On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 3:19 PM, you wrote: >> SpamPal also makes less mistakes than PopFile. M> Can SpamPal do much better than 99,71% accuracy? I doubt it, because M> even 100% isn't that much more ;-) well, I just got rid of spampal, not because it didn't work, but because I finally noticed that the slowdown in receiving mail was only on the accounts that had spampal setup. Now I am back to getting my mail FAST. I'll let comcast deal with the spam, and TB filters. -- Paul Using The Bat! v1.63 Beta/5 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: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering
Hello neurowerx, > Good point. However, I believe that DNS blacklists are updated faster than > popfile will "learn" IP addresses when you teach them manually. I don't teach IPs to POPFile. It learns by itself. The only thing I tell POPFile is if a message it has classified as spam and it isn't, or the other way around. And with 99,71% accuracy this happens very infrequently. I think it was two days ago I told POPFile that a message was not spam. -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v1.62i Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering
On Tuesday, July 15, 2003 at 6:38 PM, neurowerx wrote: > I wonder why many people are using Bayes filtering as the only > measure again spam. 95% of the spam I get is being caught by SpamPal > "alone" (DNS blacklist feature). I only use the Bayesian plugin to > Spampal as an addition (the few mails that get thru first place make > training it very easy). I use Popfile alone because it *doesn't* use DNS blacklists. I have philosophical issues with DNS blacklists. And, at 99% + accuracy, Popfile makes it really easy for me to stick to my principles. :) -- Best Regards, Terry Using The Bat! v1.62r on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 3 Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering
15-Jul-2003 21:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I don't know about other Bayesian filters but for POPFile, for example > IP addresses are just "words" that it can use to classify messages. And > it sure does learn and use IP lists. Good point. However, I believe that DNS blacklists are updated faster than popfile will "learn" IP addresses when you teach them manually. -- Best regards, neurowerx (http://www.neurowerx.de) I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past. -- Thomas Jefferson Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering
Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 3:09:00 PM, MAU wrote: M> Are you using any filter to sort messages classified as spam M> by POPFile? If so, this filter should be placed _before_ the M> Known filter. I've got the Known filter first. Sometimes people I want to get e-mail from will send a note that has spam-like material in it. I don't want to lose those messages. -- Dave Kennedy Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering - SpamPal
Hello John, > But imagine my surprise... Now I have to say, without a doubt, that > SpamPal is better than PopFile. Can I say that I doubt it? :-) > SpamPal also makes less mistakes than PopFile. Can SpamPal do much better than 99,71% accuracy? I doubt it, because even 100% isn't that much more ;-) -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v1.62i Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering
Hello neurowerx, > I wonder why many people are using Bayes filtering as the only measure > again spam. 95% of the spam I get is being caught by SpamPal "alone" (DNS > blacklist feature). Because, for example in my case, I'm getting a 99.71 accuracy with POPFile alone which, as you probably know, just does Bayesian classification. I don't know about other Bayesian filters but for POPFile, for example IP addresses are just "words" that it can use to classify messages. And it sure does learn and use IP lists. -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v1.62i Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering
Hello Dave, > The related problem is some POPFile identified spam is leaking > through, and I suspect that the Inbox-Known filtering is causing > it to trigger. But, I'm not sure of the details of the > Inbox-Known algorithm to debug this issue. Are you using any filter to sort messages classified as spam by POPFile? If so, this filter should be placed _before_ the Known filter. -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v1.62i Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering
On Tue 15-Jul-03 12:52pm -0400, MikeD wrote: > The problem is that enough spammers have figured this out and they are > spoofing your address so that (assuming, presumably, that you list > yourself in your address book ) it is not as clear as it was. I > recently had to take my address out of my address book for that very > reason It's true that spammers sometimes put your email address in one of the "sender" fields, such as Return-Path. Taking your address out of the address book is a bit extreme. A possibly better approach is to disable the filter. Create your own Known filter with the rule of your address NOT being the Sender and using the Advanced tab to specify the AB. -- Best regards, Bill Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering - SpamPal
Hello neurowerx, you wrote: > I wonder why many people are using Bayes filtering as the only measure > again spam. 95% of the spam I get is being caught by SpamPal "alone" (DNS > blacklist feature). I only use the Bayesian plugin to Spampal as an > addition (the few mails that get thru first place make training it very > easy). I just figured out that you can "right-click" the SpamPal tray icon and select "plug-in" and then choose "Bayesian Filter" and you are provided with an easy to use interface for reclassifying emails. All this time I've been Saving the erring e-mail to a special folder, then opening SpamPal, then clicking on plug-ins, then Bayesian, then properties then import messages That was the only reason I was using PopFile, was that I thought it was easier to train it. But imagine my surprise... Now I have to say, without a doubt, that SpamPal is better than PopFile. SpamPal also makes less mistakes than PopFile. -- John Morse pagemaker -at- semo -dot- net Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re[2]: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering
Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 12:52:27 PM, MikeD wrote: M> Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 8:49:16 AM, Dave K wrote: DK>> What is the logic for the "Inbox - Known" automatic DK>> filtering in conjunction with the address book? M> The problem is that enough spammers have figured this out and M> they are spoofing your address so that (assuming, presumably, M> that you list yourself in your address book ) it is not as M> clear as it was. I recently had to take my address out of my M> address book for that very reason I'm not sure that is the case. I remember the thread about this a couple of weeks ago. My situation seems different. I can look at the headers via F9 and see that the To: is [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the From: is fairly random. A recent example is [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The iron.he.net is the actual SMTP server DNS name that my muscle.net domain uses. I have received many other spams that set the To: address to my e-mail, but TB! doesn't route those to Inbox-Known, hence my question about the algorithm/logic for the filtering for Inbox-Known. -- Dave Kennedy Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering
15-Jul-2003 15:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The related problem is some POPFile identified spam Just a thought about "combined measures"... I wonder why many people are using Bayes filtering as the only measure again spam. 95% of the spam I get is being caught by SpamPal "alone" (DNS blacklist feature). I only use the Bayesian plugin to Spampal as an addition (the few mails that get thru first place make training it very easy). -- Best regards, neurowerx (http://www.neurowerx.de) I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it! Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering
Hello Dave, Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 8:49:16 AM, you wrote: DK> What is the logic for the "Inbox - Known" automatic filtering in DK> conjunction with the address book? DK> The related problem is some POPFile identified spam is leaking DK> through, and I suspect that the Inbox-Known filtering is causing DK> it to trigger. But, I'm not sure of the details of the DK> Inbox-Known algorithm to debug this issue. It is an easy way to get to the email that you are getting from the people you correspond with regularly enough to have put them in your address book. The problem is that enough spammers have figured this out and they are spoofing your address so that (assuming, presumably, that you list yourself in your address book ) it is not as clear as it was. I recently had to take my address out of my address book for that very reason -- Best regards, MikeDmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Using The Bat! v1.63 Beta/7 on Windows ME 4.90 Build 3000 Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Is this possible?
Hello Stuart, > It's almost like the action to set the color group doesn't 'take' > until all the filter processing has finished. It could be. It could also be that you are running a beta. -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v1.62i Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Is this possible?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 M> I do this with a number of addresses. Let's call them A, B, C,... M> I have a number of filters, one next to the other, and all the same: I tried something similar with color groups: Each filter was set up like this: If Recipient = X then Move Inbox to Inbox COPY message to Folder X Associate with Color Group 'Filtered' Continue processing with other filters At the end of the list I had: If Associated with Color Group 'Filtered' then Delete Message The problem was the message only got caught by the last filter if I manually ran the filter. It's almost like the action to set the color group doesn't 'take' until all the filter processing has finished. - -- Stuart Using The Bat! v1.63 Beta/11 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 PGP Key available from ldap://keyserver.pgp.com ... Once, in the Congo, I lost my corkscrew, and was forced to live on nothing but food and water for days. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP SDK 3.0 iQA/AwUBPxQPLdttnLhkydF1EQIlVwCghR2FDgkuqkPCdkQ+MDFNGUpr5dcAoP3G PLJKs+mKNUFe6o/QzRVRiNH+ =Sw72 -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Logic for the Inbox - Known filtering
What is the logic for the "Inbox - Known" automatic filtering in conjunction with the address book? The related problem is some POPFile identified spam is leaking through, and I suspect that the Inbox-Known filtering is causing it to trigger. But, I'm not sure of the details of the Inbox-Known algorithm to debug this issue. Thanks, Dave Kennedy Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Is this possible?
Hello Stuart, > Just lately I have found myself mailing 2 or 3 of these people at the > same time. Is there a way I can set up the filers so that if there are > multiple addressees a copy goes to each folder without me ending up > with the original being left in my inbox? I do this with a number of addresses. Let's call them A, B, C,... I have a number of filters, one next to the other, and all the same: If Recipient = X then Move Inbox to Inbox COPY message to Folder X Continue processing with other filters Obviously, in each filter X = A, B, C... I use "Recipient" but it should work just the same with "Kludges" And finally, at the end of the series of filters I have another one: If Recipient = A OR Recipient = B OR Recipient = C OR Move Inbox to Trash Mark message as read (ORs are Alternatives) It works just fine for me, no matter what combination of A, B, C, ... etc., I get in a message. -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v1.62i Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Is this possible?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 >> Do you SWIM? TF> Perfectly. I think. Indeed you do. Nice one. TVM. - -- Stuart Using The Bat! v1.63 Beta/11 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 PGP Key available from ldap://keyserver.pgp.com ... IAM 666 License plate number of the Beast -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP SDK 3.0 iQA/AwUBPxPTZdttnLhkydF1EQLp2ACg5sAKg90/JAiloLm42CZ7Noo/RnYAnR7l L3b7uK9OO7SToUzKXP6vsrMO =rJKn -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Is this possible?
Hello Stuart, On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 10:33:55 +0100 GMT (15/07/03, 16:33 +0700 GMT), Stuart Hemming wrote: > Just lately I have found myself mailing 2 or 3 of these people at the > same time. Is there a way I can set up the filers so that if there are > multiple addressees a copy goes to each folder without me ending up > with the original being left in my inbox? The first filter should have two rules on the main tab: Bill present in kludges AND Bob present in Kludges Move message to folder: Bill and, under the Actions tab: [X] Create a copy of the message in another folder: Bob. If this filter doesn't catch (because only Bill or only Bob is present in kludges), the other filters will work as usual. I have a similar problem, but I handle it slightly differently. If another folder called "Bill and Bob", and when both are present in kludges, the message will be moved to that folder. This way, I see immediately when the message was addressed to both. Another idea is to move messages from Bill and from Bob into the smae folder anyway, but colour them differently. Blue for Bill and green for Bob. And of course, if the messages contains both Bill's and Bob's email address, use violet. > Do you SWIM? Perfectly. I think. -- Cheers, Thomas. Moderator der deutschen The Bat! Beginner Liste. "Sorry, Officer, I didn't realize my radar detector wasn't plugged in." Message reply created with The Bat! 1.63 Beta/5 under Chinese Windows 98 4.10 Build A using a Pentium P4 1.7 GHz, 128MB RAM Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Is this possible?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I have a number of folders that I keep mail from specific individuals in. I also have filters set up to move messages to/from those individuals in to the appropriate box. Just lately I have found myself mailing 2 or 3 of these people at the same time. Is there a way I can set up the filers so that if there are multiple addressees a copy goes to each folder without me ending up with the original being left in my inbox? The filters work by checking for the individual's email address in Kludges. I bcc myself on each outgoing message so that the copy gets filed properly when copy gets mailed back to me. If I just set [x] continue processing other rules the bcc'd copy will always end up in my inbox. If I create a rule to delete messages from me in the inbox (after the othere filters have had a chance) I will lose any messages I bcc to me where there /isn't/ a specific folder for the addressee. Do you SWIM? - -- Stuart Using The Bat! v1.63 Beta/11 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1 PGP Key available from ldap://keyserver.pgp.com ... My toaster works on AC and DC, just not on bread. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP SDK 3.0 iQA/AwUBPxPKnNttnLhkydF1EQLN8gCg+jE2BLHaZ0JW82RV/RLot6rp+f0Ani8I 07UzhmuRd8/hWNDIF4RQZLZc =sLkA -END PGP SIGNATURE- Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: Cost Effective TB Backup!
Hello Greg, > Since this is going OT see my reply off list. :-) Not really OT. TB is probably the kulu ngile MUA in the world :) -- Best regards, Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain) Using The Bat! v1.62i Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
