Re: SpamPal or K9?
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 or K9?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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) URL: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?
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?
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?
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?
-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 mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 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?
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?
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
