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: 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
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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: 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: 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
Re: A Useful spam filter
Hi Mark, On Thursday, June 12, 2003, 23:17:05, Mark wrote: Here is a regex spam filter folks might find useful [...] That is a good way to start, but there are more powerful spam filters. SAProxy is a Windows incarnation of SpamAssassin, a very widely used and thoroughly perfected spam filter which looks for all kinds of clues in a mail. It gives positive points for spam indicators and negative ones for ham indicators. It's available for free at http://saproxy.bloomba.com/ Another very powerful, yet free spam filter (catches about 96% of my spam on four accounts) is POPFile (http://popfile.sourceforge.net/). Takes some training but seems pretty stable and dependable. Regards, Roman -- Roman Katzer, Aachen, Germany Cat law: Always give generously. A small bird or rodent left on the bed tells them, I care. Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: A Useful spam filter
snip I want to understand EXACTLY how my mail is triaged and why, particularly on my critical accounts. Unfortunately, it is my sad yet considered opinion the choice to do your own filtering is evaporating. My friend told me boastfully about how his Iowa (USA) ISP was Filtering his mail with a bayesian filter. I pointed him to a free bayesian filter he could operate locally, knowing exactly what was getting bounced. The face of e-mail is changing and the usefulness of the once-innocent Internet is fast deteriorating into a sleazebag carney sideshow, populated by hawkers, stalkers, con-men and idiots. A grumpy old man's jaded opinion? Or is it the opinion of someone unafraid to speak his mind? You decide. Better still, do your own filtering while you still can. Zero replies and zero comments on my earlier list post, which although posted in good spirit with a 3-hour compose time, was evidently a waste of time in the minds of the target audience, eh? What else is new. Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: A Useful spam filter
Zero replies and zero comments on my earlier list post, which although posted in good spirit with a 3-hour compose time, was evidently a waste of time in the minds of the target audience, eh? Not so fast Mike. Just because there wasn't a long thread full of replies and opinions doesn't mean that people didn't find it a useful read. I've not done anything in the way of spam filtering (lucky so far I guess) - so didn't have much to add. I kept your message handy for ideas when the time comes - and I'm sure it'll come. What else is new. It's easy to get jaded when you do something for the common good with little or no return. Trust me, I know. -- Ravi (http://shell-shocked.org) Nothing is wrong with you that reincarnation can't cure.. Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: A Useful spam filter
Good day to everyone, You are going to laugh, but I signed up to this list just a day or two ago in order to find out a few things about TB in order to perfect the anti-spam mechnism that I just developed. Not really developed, just added a few final touches to known techniques. The resulting thing is extremely useful - in two days of testing I got about 200 spam messages and only 2 wound up in my mailbox, but that's a separate story. The questions I have are the following: 1. I didn't find any way to configure TB to add custom headers to outgoing messages. Looking through the archive I found out that it is certainly not possible now, but will be possible in the future. Does anyone know roughly when it will become available? 2. Somewhere in the archives I found message recommending XRay as header modification filter. I downloaded it and started using it, and it appears to behave. However, it's documentation doesn't match the program, and the interface is very counter-intuitive. I wonder if there is some expert on this list that could help me with two things: * get TB to add _SEVERAL_ header lines with the same name, for example: Organization: one thing Organization: another thing Organization: yet another thing * get XRay to replace the header names to different things. Say, the first instance of Organization to become Auto-Submitted, the second - X-Failed-Recipient, etc. 3. When I finish working on the mechanism, I will also finish writing a small page describing the filters used - i.e. how to combine SpamPal, TheBat!, XRay and a few hopefully clever tricks to be very effective and yet have no false positives. Is anyone interested in this when it's done? The page is right now in Russian, but I can also translate it into English, if anyone cares. Thanks a lot! Leo Landa. 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 7:02pm -0400, Csaba Kiss wrote: snipped Csaba, you seem to be having a few macro problems. (1) The `Re:` in your subject line is not separated from the real subject. (2) You appear to be deleting the In-Reply-To line in the Kludges - this destroys threading (you also have no References line. -- Best regards, Bill Creeds must become intellectually honest. At present there is not a single credible established religion in the world. [George Bernard Shaw] Current version is 1.62r | Using TBUDL information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Re: A Useful spam filter
It's easy to get jaded when you do something for the common good with little or no return. Trust me, I know. This is a busy list. Thanks for your comments. Jaded is indeed a good word for what I was feeling at the time my reply was written. I would add only that to work as designed, and after a breaking-in period, my all-or-nothing filters should be, in fact, engaged with finality. There is one caveat, which is the mail dispatched from an address added to the permit line, but replied-to from another address within the organization. It's an imperfect world; imperfect filters; an imperfect author. And yet I am well fed-up with people taking me for the sitting e-mail duck. Spam here has been running at about 50/day. Disgusting. -- 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
