Re: SpamPal or K9?

[Steve & Mary King]

Michael,

I really like K9 (& POPFile), but to conserve resources on this old system I'm
trying the plug-in Achim Winklers BayesFilter,
http://www.lkcc.org/achim/download/bayesfilter1.5.4.exe.  So far it seems to
be almost as good as K9, but learns slower.  I did better with the older
versions of BayesIt than the present ones, so I gave up on it.

Steve . . .

 Michael, Tuesday, September 28, 2004, 10:06:27 PM, you wrote:==

> Hi,

> I have to get off BayesIT!  It learns way to slow.  What do people
> think of SpamPal or K9?  I have tried both and like both...so, what do
> others think?




Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPal or K9?

[Alexander S. Kunz]

Hello Lynn & everyone else

29-Sep-2004 21:50, you wrote:

> No doubt you are right, but I'm having some trouble
> training some my correspondents to use the other address
> :-(

They'll learn when they get the "no mailbox here by that name" responder...
;-)

-- 
Best regards,
 Alexander (http://www.neurowerx.de - ICQ 238153981)
 using v3.0.1 RC1 on Windows XP Pro Service Pack 2

Non-Reciprocal Law of Expectations: Negative expectations yield negative
results. Positive expectations yield negative results.



Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPal or K9?

[Kevin Coates]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi Michael,

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:06:27 -0700 (1:06 AM here), Michael L. Wilson
[MLW] wrote in :

MLW> I have to get off BayesIT! It learns way to slow. What do people
MLW> think of SpamPal or K9? I have tried both and like both...so,
MLW> what do others think?

I've used SpamPal for quite some time and really like it. I've
experimented with BayesIt and Bayes Filter. The plug in idea is
appealing, not having to run a relay and having the spam solution more
self contained. I never received the accuracy of SpamPal with either
of these solutions. Not to mention the stability problems that recent
BayesIt versions have had.

I use the Bayesian Filter, P2P, RegExFilter and URLBody plugins with
SpamPal. It never misclassifies good messages as spam and rarely
misses spam. On the rare miss, I can open the reclassify window to
learn the missed spam. It works very well upon initial setup.

- --
Kevin Coates
Dewitt, NY USA

Using TB! v3.0.0.19 under Windows XP 5.1.2600 SP2

(see kludges for my pgp key)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iD8DBQFBWrsavZSrVDqOXK0RAsBsAKDqt5cuALq0JdjyJCyObaewe6yZWACdH4C7
Ru3TIE1wyRRwFrbR9Sss/4Y=
=iHXd
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPal or K9?

[Roelof Otten]

Hallo Lynn,

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:52:34 -0700GMT (29-9-2004, 18:52 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:

RO>> I'd drop it as soon as possible.
L> Drop what, the account?

Yep, anything that gets far more spam than legit mail isn't worth
maintaining.

-- 
Groetjes, Roelof

The Bat! 3.0.0.19
Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1
1 pop3 account, server on LAN

Disclaimer: Any opinion stated in this message is not necessarily shared by my budgies 
or rabbits.


pgpkvODo6bnGm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPal or K9?

[Roelof Otten]

Hallo Lynn,

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 08:55:52 -0700GMT (29-9-2004, 17:55 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:

L> How would you deal with an account which has very little
L> legit traffic, but seems to be a spam magnet?

I'd drop it as soon as possible.

-- 
Groetjes, Roelof

The Bat! 3.0.0.19
Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1
1 pop3 account, server on LAN

Disclaimer: Any opinion stated in this message is not necessarily shared by my budgies 
or rabbits.


pgpW5LmbUN8Ph.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPal or K9?

[Ivan Latysh]

Hello Michael,

Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 1:06:27 AM, you wrote:

> I have to get off BayesIT!  It learns way to slow.  What do people
> think of SpamPal or K9?  I have tried both and like both...so, what do
> others think?

 Most probable that it been taught badly.
 It doesn't meter which one program do you use, K9, POPFile, ... all of
them have exactly the same logic.
 The big difference is how you teach your program.
 My suggestion, delete BayesIT database and teach it again, but do it
carefully. 10-20 messages and 90% accuracy of filtering.
 A few hints, if you have subscribed to any mailing lists, don't mark
messages as NOT Junk, put them in white list.
 White list and black list what you can and let the filter to deal
with rest, works for 99.97% in a week.

-- 
Best regards,
 Ivanmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPal or K9?

[Ludovic LE MOAL]

Hi,

On Wednesday, September 29, 2004 at 10:43:53 AM, Sander van den Berg wrote:

> Onetime, there was a free program called "SAproxy", but a while ago it has
> gone commercial

I used to use it but it was very very slow. Then I test K9 which was
by far better and then BayesIt. Now, I use BayesFilter which works
fine.
-- 
Ludovic LE MOAL (Quimper - France)
http://www.lemoal.org/> ICQ# 92250692
Using The Bat! v3.0 on Windows 98 4.10



Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPal or K9?

[Nick Dutton]

>> I have to get off BayesIT!  It learns way to slow.  What do people
>> think of SpamPal or K9?  I have tried both and like both...so, what do
>> others think?

M> Try POPFile (http://popfile.sourceforge.net/), It has been running for
M> me with 99.82% accuracy for over one year.

For the record POPFile v0.22.0 has a much improved database and is
noticeably quicker.

  http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=266476


-- 
 Nick



Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPal or K9?

[Prezes]

Hello,
Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 7:06:27 AM, you wrote:

MLW> I have to get off BayesIT!  It learns way to slow.  What do people
MLW> think of SpamPal or K9?  I have tried both and like both...so, what do
MLW> others think?

K9 is more better than SpamPal for me (near 100% accurancy) but you
shuold try both and then choose better for you.

-- 
Best regards,
 Prezes  mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

The Bat! v3.0.0.19, Windows XP 5.1, Build 2600, Service Pack 2



Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPal or K9?

[Nick Dutton]

Hello Sander,

Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 9:43:53 AM, you wrote:
SvdB>>> But, to be honest, I would prefer a freeware Windows version of SpamAssassin.
SvdB>>> But it does not exist... :-(

ND>> SA is just perl, I had it running nicely OK on a PC a couple of years
ND>> back.

SvdB> I know, I had it running too (it was called "Pop3Proxy"). But it
SvdB> didn't use all the extensions like a full installation of
SvdB> SpamAssassin on a unix system.

I think that you're wrong.  SpamAssassin *is* only perl.  If you have
perl on your PC then you can run the real deal.  There are a few
issues with pipelining etc and getting all the perl modules requires a
bit of CPAN knowledge.

Pop3Proxy and others were packaged products that took the pain out of
getting perl/SA installed in Win32.

Do that google - then get back to me...


-- 
 Nick



Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPal or K9?

[Nick Dutton]

Hello Sander,

Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 8:30:55 AM, you wrote:
SvdB> But, to be honest, I would prefer a freeware Windows version of SpamAssassin.
SvdB> But it does not exist... :-(

SA is just perl, I had it running nicely OK on a PC a couple of years
back.

Have a google on it...


-- 
 Nick

Back to TheBat!: v2.12.00 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600
Service Pack 2



Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPal or K9?

[Mark Partous]

Hello Michael,

Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 7:06:27 AM, you wrote:

MLW> Hi,

MLW> I have to get off BayesIT!  It learns way to slow.  What do people
MLW> think of SpamPal or K9?  I have tried both and like both...so, what do
MLW> others think?

Been using K9 for a year now. Never used SpamPal.

-- 
Best Wishes,
Mark
using The Bat! 3.0.0.19





Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPal or K9?

[MAU]

Hello Michael,

> I have to get off BayesIT!  It learns way to slow.  What do people
> think of SpamPal or K9?  I have tried both and like both...so, what do
> others think?

Try POPFile (http://popfile.sourceforge.net/), It has been running for
me with 99.82% accuracy for over one year.

-- 
Best regards,

Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v3.0.0.19





Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPal or K9?

[Chris Weaven]

Hi Michael,

On Tuesday, September 28, 2004 22:06 your local time, which was
Wednesday, September 29, 2004 at 06:06 my local time, Michael Wilson
[MLW] wrote;

MLW> I have to get off BayesIT!  It learns way to slow.  What do people
MLW> think of SpamPal or K9?  I have tried both and like both...so, what do
MLW> others think?

I used SpamPal for just over a month and it worked very well. I ended up
moving to Bayes Filter for a couple of reasons;

1. When connecting with TLS and SpamPal, I also needed Stunnel
2. I wanted an all in one solution, and running TB!, SpamPal and Stunnel
wasn't really convienient.
3. I was having IMAP timeout issues

Other than that, it was a very effective program and pretty fast.
Although having said that, I'm more than happy with Bayes Filter since
I've made the move and especially since using the DNS list's similar to
SpamPal.

Stats so far;

HamMails:  5530
SpamMails: 1732
Detected Ham:  5014 (99.9%)
Detected Spam: 871 (99.3%)
FALSE Ham detected:  6
FALSE Spam detected: 2

I hope that helps.
-- 
Regards,

Chris

Created using The Bat! v3.0.0.19 & IMAP
OS of Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 2
Cleaning up SPAM with Bayes Filter Plugin v1.5.4



Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPal or K9?

[Henk de Bruijn]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:06:27 -0700GMT (29-9-2004, 7:06 +0100, where I
live), Michael L. Wilson wrote:

> I have to get off BayesIT!  It learns way to slow.  What do people
> think of SpamPal or K9?  I have tried both and like both...so, what do
> others think?

I am working with Poptray 3.03 and Spampal 1.581 for almost a year and
pleased with both. Getting messages from the server is going pretty
quick.

-- 
cheers,
Henk
__
:tbflag: The Bat!™ Natural Email System v3.0nl Professional on Windows XP SP2
PGP Key Request: See Headers or send email with subj.: send HenksKeyID
Gossamer Spider Web of Trust http://gswot.webhop.info/

pgpNOirzdhfaz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPal or K9?

[Sander van den Berg]

On 29-9-2004, 7:06, Michael L. Wilson wrote:

MLW> I have to get off BayesIT!  It learns way to slow.  What do people
MLW> think of SpamPal or K9?  I have tried both and like both...so, what do
MLW> others think?

Never used K9. I have used SpamPal for quite some time now. After a while,
when the Bayesian plugin has learned enough, it becomes almost flawless. And
if you don't like bayesian filtering, you can always choose not to use it and
rely on its blacklist system, regular expression filtering (plugin), URL
filtering (plugin), etc. etc.

But, to be honest, I would prefer a freeware Windows version of SpamAssassin.
But it does not exist... :-(

-- 
Best regards,
Sander van den Berg
:nlflag: 

The Bat! v3.0
Windows XP Service Pack 1



Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Spampal and NOD POPscan; NEVER MIND

[Joseph N.]

   On Sunday, April 06, 2003, Joseph N. wrote in
:

JN> Normally, I would have TB! connecting on port x to my AV's POPscanner,
JN> which then connects out on port 110. Is it correct that I should keep
JN> Spampal tuned in to the default port 110, and let Windows or Spampal
JN> or my AV POPscanner figure out the rest? Or is there a better way to
JN> go?

Never mind  I forgot I use TB!'s AV plug-in :-)

-- 
JN



Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: Spampal and NOD POPscan

[David Calvarese]

Hi The Bat! User Discussion list,
  
 On Sunday, April 06, 2003 at 21:08:46GMT -0500 (which was 9:08 PM where I live)
  Joseph N. wrote and made these points on the subject of "Spampal and NOD POPscan":
JN>On Saturday, April 05, 2003, David Calvarese wrote in
JN> :

DC>> http://www.spampal.org

JN> David and Luc,

JN> Thank you.  I'll try Spampal.  One question about setup, though.

JN> Normally, I would have TB! connecting on port x to my AV's POPscanner,
JN> which then connects out on port 110. Is it correct that I should keep
JN> Spampal tuned in to the default port 110, and let Windows or Spampal
JN> or my AV POPscanner figure out the rest? Or is there a better way to
JN> go?

I know with the 2.x betas (and presumably the release) the easiest way
is to have spampal listen on port 111 and Nod32 set to monitor port
111 so it doesn't scan both before and after spampal.

With the 1.x releases, umm, I forget how it needs to be set up in Nod.

I THINK that you need to either do:

   Mail Client -> SpamPal -> AV

Or

   Mail Client -> AV -> SpamPal

My guess is that the first is better so the AV can scan stuff before
SpamPal looks at it.

I think you need to have Spampal set on another port, lets say 111 and
Nod32 have port 110 set to go to your mail server then tell TB! that
the server is localhost and the username is @localhost where
username is your username on your mail server.



-- 
Best regards,
David
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of E-mailaholics International - Proud Member of The WELL
PGP Key at http://search.keyserver.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCC7E7664
Everything can be filed under "miscellaneous."



Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPal and header only download

[Peter Fjelsten]

Douglas,

On 05-01-2003 23:02, you [D] wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
D> Combine both and I can receive or not receive anything on the server,
D> and I can revise anything programmed by Selective Download for
D> deletion without reception.

SpamPal needs the mail to "pass through" it so that the headers can be
altered as mentioned. This way it can be filtered locally.

I wanted to be able to:

Download the header only. Have SpamPal mark the header of this as
spam

Delete the full mail from the server without download.

Alas this (to the best of my knowledge) is impossible.

D> So why do I need SpamPal? As it's described, I don't see that it
D> does anything TB! doesn't already do, with no added work or expense.

Yes it does. Quite a lot, actually:

Will check senders IP against continually  maintained blocklists.

And with the Bayesian filter, it can be set up to "learn" the
content of spam messages and make an informed guesstimate of new
messages.

When SpamPal finds spam, it sets a X-header which mail can be filtered
against. OK, mail needs to be downloaded to do this it appears, but it
is very good at finding spam.


-- 
 Best regards  
 Peter Fjelsten
 1.63 Beta/1 
 Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1




Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPal and header only download

[Frank Lusardi]

JA>   I'm not sure how SpamPal works, but wouldn't it match on body as
JA>   well?  As for just grabbing the headers, I think this might work:
JA> Account - Properties - Mail Management

SpamPal is essentially a read-only SMTP server, through
which TB retrieves mail after SpamPal has been set to
retrieve mail from your provider. SpamPal adds an
"X-SpamPal" header to all incoming messages, something like:

X-SpamPal: SPAM SPCOP 200.217.236.60

If the message is deemed not to be spam, the header is:

X-SpamPal: PASS

So you can filter on the headers. SpamPal will also,
optionally, append a string to the message subject if the
message is apam. You can define the string to be appended.
You can then filter on the subject.

It seems to work quite well, though it has crashed once.

- Frank



Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPal and header only download

[Peter Fjelsten]

Jonathan,

On 05-01-2003 21:43, you [J] wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
J>   I'm not sure how SpamPal works, but wouldn't it match on body as
J>   well?  As for just grabbing the headers, I think this might work:

J> Account - Properties - Mail Management

J>   Tick the box that says "receive headers only if mail is over x KB",
J>   just leave the number at 0. That should do it.

Yes but then I cannot get the mail normally. I would need this option
for the selective filter only.

-- 
 Best regards  
 Peter Fjelsten
 1.63 Beta/1 
 Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1




Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPal and header only download

[Jonathan Angliss]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Sunday, January 05, 2003, Peter Fjelsten wrote...

J>> SpamPal then tags the mail as required. Or is this correct, and
J>> you're trying to get TB! to only download just the headers anyway?

> Correct.

  I'm not sure how SpamPal works, but wouldn't it match on body as
  well?  As for just grabbing the headers, I think this might work:

Account - Properties - Mail Management

  Tick the box that says "receive headers only if mail is over x KB",
  just leave the number at 0. That should do it.

- --
Jonathan Angliss
([EMAIL PROTECTED])

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: Fingerprint: 676A 1701 665B E343 E393  B8D2 2B83 E814 F8FD 1F73

iQA/AwUBPhiY3iuD6BT4/R9zEQKX/wCghQksrV7Vz5uKMnM0zHr8TYvgapsAn2pX
8sNO4OQ6+8SX7I7tGJTmJybZ
=m6CL
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPal and header only download

[Peter Fjelsten]

Jonathan,

On 05-01-2003 04:28, you [J] wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
J> On Friday, January 03, 2003, Peter Fjelsten wrote...

J>>> Unless of course you wanted to only download the headers so you
J>>> could review them, then I am not entirely sure if you can.

>> In order for SpamPal to be able to tag them as spam, it needs to DL
>> the header.

J> Hrm... the way I read that, was SpamPal was an intermediary product
J> that TB! 'connects' to and downloads the mail through.

Correct.

J> SpamPal then tags the mail as required. Or is this correct, and
J> you're trying to get TB! to only download just the headers anyway?

Correct.

-- 
 Best regards  
 Peter Fjelsten
 1.63 Beta/1 
 Windows XP 5.1.2600 Service Pack 1




Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPal and header only download

[Jonathan Angliss]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Friday, January 03, 2003, Peter Fjelsten wrote...

J>> Unless of course you wanted to only download the headers so you
J>> could review them, then I am not entirely sure if you can.

> In order for SpamPal to be able to tag them as spam, it needs to DL
> the header.

  Hrm... the way I read that, was SpamPal was an intermediary product
  that TB! 'connects' to and downloads the mail through. SpamPal then
  tags the mail as required. Or is this correct, and you're trying to
  get TB! to only download just the headers anyway?

- --
Jonathan Angliss
([EMAIL PROTECTED])

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: Fingerprint: 676A 1701 665B E343 E393  B8D2 2B83 E814 F8FD 1F73

iQA/AwUBPhemXSuD6BT4/R9zEQJmSgCfS1YNBeQIqlGWRgptacFfTJ52rpwAoI1h
uZeMxzBT/+arc4bNDLMiBo2K
=QRdY
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPal and header only download

[Peter Fjelsten]

Jonathan,

On 04-01-2003 04:41, you [J] wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
J> Unless of course you wanted to only download the headers so you could
J> review them, then I am not entirely sure if you can.

In order for SpamPal to be able to tag them as spam, it needs to DL the
header.

-- 
 Best regards  
 Peter Fjelsten
 1.63 Beta/1 
 Windows XP 5.1.2600 




Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPal and header only download

[Jonathan Angliss]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Friday, January 03, 2003, Peter Fjelsten wrote...

> Is there anyway to just download the _header_ of an e-mail
> _automatically_ by TB? This should be enough to classify the e-mail
> after which it can be deleted from the server (if it's spam).

  I think what you might be after is the "Selective Download" filters.
  In there, you can setup matches on mail on the server, and you don't
  need to see it as you can drop it from the mail server before it
  downloads. Unless of course you wanted to only download the headers
  so you could review them, then I am not entirely sure if you can.

- --
Jonathan Angliss
([EMAIL PROTECTED])

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Comment: Fingerprint: 676A 1701 665B E343 E393  B8D2 2B83 E814 F8FD 1F73

iQA/AwUBPhZX1SuD6BT4/R9zEQLoXQCgqHeaFMlG+U26YVCPDZCLvbgXmg0An04z
SJfLuD44/HKBPcR0QrqPbZ5+
=S6p4
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Current version is 1.62 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPAl

[Kevin Coates]

Hi Online,

On Sunday, September 22, 2002 at 10:53 GMT -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[osn] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :

osn> Totally in agreement. In the past I used SPUMBUSTER and then
osn> SPAMKiller, but I that was taking a lot of time.

Yes, it does get time consuming. I haven't had to adjust my Bat
filters in quite awhile and they work like a charm.

osn> I used the filteres not only for spam but for virus as well. For
osn> every critical virus I input key words of the subjetct matter.
osn> And that has worked pretty well, better and 1000% than
osn> Spamkiller.

I haven't tried that yet, but I've had pretty good luck with Norton
2002. It seems to catch everything.

osn> Having had problems with the delete command I have lost couple of
osn> account and in the process of moving filters I realized that the
osn> best strategy is to have the filters as outside files.

I'm not sure what you mean by outside files unless you're referring to
selective download. I tried that, but decided that I'd rather see
everything just to be safe.

osn> Today I used to filters only: the SUBJET Filter and the HEADERS
osn> Filter. And it is working like hell.

I do some text filters as well as some of the spam has the same text
in the message body but different subject lines. It does work well and
separates The Bat from any of the other email programs I've tried.

-- 
Kevin Coates
Dewitt, NY  USA
_
 AIM:kbc49 ICQ:2727351 Yahoo/MSM:kbc1949



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPAl

[William Moore]

 Hello Adam

 Thank you for your email dated Saturday, September 21, 2002, 9:36:35 AM, in which you 
wrote:

AR> SPEWS is a wonderful deterrent
Adam, you may be interested in my TBOT post.

-- 

 Regards
 William

 Flying with The Bat! 1.61 www.ritlabs.com/the_bat
 Windows 2000 Pro 2195 Service Pack 2



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPAl

[Adam Rykala]

Sh'mae tbudl-bounces,
 
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, at 18:55:40 [GMT -0400] (or 23:55 in Wales)
regarding 'SpamPAl' you wrote:



AR>> DNSBL's is the main thing - the bat can filter on various things
AR>> but its retroactive - SpamPal is a bi more pro active

KC> I guess I don't see the advantage as spam is spam and in either case
KC> it ends up in the same folder, whether tagged by a DNSBL list or not.
KC> The disadvantage, as I mentioned, is that sometimes you get mail
KC> tagged as spam erroneously if a person happens to be legitimate and
KC> residing on a DNSBL flagged server. You also have to run a 3rd party
KC> program that needs to be updated periodically, ties up more system
KC> resources, to achieve the same net result. Simply using The Bat's
KC> built in capabilities seems more streamlined. I've gone both routes,
KC> but this is what I've found works for me. In either case, it seems
KC> ridiculous that we all have to jump these hoops in order to eliminate
KC> unwanted, unrequested junk mail. I hate spam. :(


As  someone  who's domain is tagged in SPEWS because of someone else, I actually
disagree strongly. SPEWS is a wonderful deterrent and I think using DNSBL's is a
much better way then relying on filtering on rules.

I'd  like  to  see  TB!  do  its  own lookup of DNSBL's and then it would be the
ULTIMATE email client - so hint hint Ritlabs! ;-)

As  I  have a Dual Piii system with 640mb of ram system resources isn't an issue
for me!

a
 

-- 
 pgp key:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  O  I'd rather play guitar
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] /|\ 09:34, 21 September 2002
 (o-"-¬  
http://new-wales.net / \ Adam Rykala

When danger reared its ugly head, He bravely turned his tail and fled.   



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPAl

[Kevin Coates]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi Adam,

On Friday, September 20, 2002 at 21:25 GMT +0100, Adam Rykala [AR]
wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :

KC>> There really is no need to use a 3rd party filter if you invest a
KC>> little time setting up The Bats filters. The end result is
KC>> effective spam filtering with only one program ... your e-mail
KC>> program. The Bat's backup facility allows you to save everything
KC>> easily. Who could ask for more?

AR> DNSBL's is the main thing - the bat can filter on various things
AR> but its retroactive - SpamPal is a bi more pro active

I guess I don't see the advantage as spam is spam and in either case
it ends up in the same folder, whether tagged by a DNSBL list or not.
The disadvantage, as I mentioned, is that sometimes you get mail
tagged as spam erroneously if a person happens to be legitimate and
residing on a DNSBL flagged server. You also have to run a 3rd party
program that needs to be updated periodically, ties up more system
resources, to achieve the same net result. Simply using The Bat's
built in capabilities seems more streamlined. I've gone both routes,
but this is what I've found works for me. In either case, it seems
ridiculous that we all have to jump these hoops in order to eliminate
unwanted, unrequested junk mail. I hate spam. :(

- --
Kevin Coates
Dewitt, NY  USA
_
 AIM:kbc49 ICQ:2727351 Yahoo/MSM:kbc1949
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.1.91-nr1 (Windows 2000)

iD8DBQE9i6dg+iLuzNeXThwRAtioAKDQWw2/Vh7suufXh50FGGlms1glaACg+hH9n/ymGZGtJknC7OcaYHSf3OIXo=
=KTYb
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPAl

[Adam Rykala]

Sh'mae Kevin,
 
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, at 15:51:59 [GMT -0400] (or 20:51 in Wales)
regarding 'SpamPAl' you wrote:



KC> There really is no need to use a 3rd party filter if you invest a
KC> little time setting up The Bats filters. The end result is effective
KC> spam filtering with only one program ... your e-mail program. The
KC> Bat's backup facility allows you to save everything easily. Who could
KC> ask for more?

DNSBL's  is  the  main  thing  -  the  bat  can filter on various things but its
retroactive - SpamPal is a bi more pro active

a
 

-- 
 pgp key:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  O  I'd rather play guitar
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] /|\ 21:24, 20 September 2002
 (o-"-¬  
http://new-wales.net / \ Adam Rykala

The only difference between diplomacy and treachery is spelling.   



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPAl

[Kevin Coates]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi Adam,

On Friday, September 20, 2002 at 14:53 GMT +0100, Adam Rykala [AR]
wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :

AR> Seeing as the pursuit of spam is an ongoing concern to
AR> everyone...anyone checked out SpamPal at www.spampal.org.uk?

AR> I'm using it now and it looks pretty good... DNSBL's,
AR> white/blacklists, auto updates free and the manual mentions
AR> the Bat! for configuring anyway!

I average between 20-25 spam messages/day on my various email
accounts. At one time, I diligently reported everything to SpamCop. I
never received any less spam, so I gave up.

Next I tried a variety of spam intercepting/tagging software like
SpamPal, SpamWeasel, etc. They seemed to work, but I thought it was
cumbersome to have to use an extra program for mail retrieval.

Next I decided to focus on using The Bats filters exclusively. It
works wonderfully! I rarely get any non-spam in my spam folder, and no
spam in my in boxes. I also don't lose email from people whose ISPs
are blacklisted.

I use 5 filters following some of the schemes used by the spam
blocking software. I have a filter by Subject, by Body, by From
Address, Known, and then a catch all to get the rest. These all follow
my filters for mailing lists and wanted info messages. The Bat's Known
filter (people listed in your address book) is such a great idea. I
don't know why other email programs don't adopt it.

There really is no need to use a 3rd party filter if you invest a
little time setting up The Bats filters. The end result is effective
spam filtering with only one program ... your e-mail program. The
Bat's backup facility allows you to save everything easily. Who could
ask for more?

- --
Kevin Coates
Dewitt, NY  USA
_
 AIM:kbc49 ICQ:2727351 Yahoo/MSM:kbc1949
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.1.91-nr1 (Windows 2000)

iD8DBQE9i3wm+iLuzNeXThwRAmZ1AKDND68RDsu5ZZVbG9TxVLH+9n6pFACg2mzA
R/mtYBQWFQv1iI3mxXhykmw=
=OIWd
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html

Re: SpamPAl

[Enrico Straube]

Hi Adam,

on Freitag, 20. September 2002 15:53:44 you wrote:
> Seeing as the pursuit of spam is an ongoing concern to everyone...anyone checked
> out SpamPal at www.spampal.org.uk?

> I'm  using  it  now  and it looks pretty good... DNSBL's, white/blacklists, auto
> updates free and the manual mentions the Bat! for configuring anyway!

You can also use my SpamSort  to update
the Blacklist of SpamPal. SpamSort can be used with TB! via filter and
hotkey.

-- 
Bye,
 Enrico Straube

Using The Bat! 1.62/Beta5 under Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600 Service Pack 1



Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information:
http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html