Re[2]: filter problems and questions.
On Thursday, September 21, 2000, 2:11:15 PM, you wrote: KS I'm not so sure that it's a good idea to add a rule for each and KS every spam address: there are simply to many addresses from which True - I currently have a filtering list of 3081 addresses, and it still misses some :-). ztrader -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re[2]: filter problems and questions.
Hello A, Wednesday, September 20, 2000, 4:47:55 AM, you wrote: ACM Just out of interest, how are you going about creating the spam filter ACM rules? To what string are you filtering to because spam artists rarely ACM ever send spam using the same name or from address. Creating filters to ACM these usually amounts to a futile exercise. If i might go in here, one way to do it is to make a rule based on the incoming message which is considered as spam and uncheck the sender and recipient boxes and check the subject box. Another way that i tried, (it didn't work so well) was to filter a message where my name wasn't in the kludges to a spam folder. For some reason, it just caught one or two of say five... Oh well those spammers... -- Best regards, Kristermailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re[2]: filter problems and questions.
Hey Karin, Tuesday, September 19, 2000, 4:30:54 PM, you wrote: Karin If you'd have the third filter as number one, _everything_ Karin that is not strict;y addressed to you will immediatel go to Karin Trash, and that you certainly don't want. Judging by what I usually receive it wouldn't be a lick amiss. KarinGo to the Options tab and tick Continue Processing With Karin Other Folders. First, I've heard of this. It seems to not be the default but is necessary to make the filter work right. I re-read the help files and didn't see it there. Should this box be checked on all filters? OR just all but the last one? Karin Done. Now you have a basic filter that automatically moves Karin your TB mail to your TB folder. It actually WORKS! Karin Do the same for other mailinglists that you are on (very Karin often they don't list _you_ in the To: field, but use the Karin mailing list address), and *only then* add the filter that Karin makes everything that has NOT you in the To: field move to Karin trash: KarinString: ![EMAIL PROTECTED] (don't forget the !, it Karin means: not) KarinLocation: Recipient KarinPresence: yes Karin And have those move to Trash. This sure is counter intuitive to my way of thinking. The FIRST filter I set up in any program is one that blocks the hundreds of spam messages that flood all email addys that have been around for a while. Is it a bug to add new filters at the bottom of the list?? And what is the difference between the "!address" and "Presence: No ?" Seems to me it's the same thing just more convoluted. Karin I'd very much advise you to carefully look at your Trash in Karin the following days, and when you find something that _is_ Karin inded meant for you, make a new filter for that, or adjust Karin existing ones. So does this mean every time a new spam sneaks through existing filters I'll have to create a new filter for it, open the Sorting Office/Filters and move the new filter somewhere else? Is there a way to just add the latest intruder to the existing spam filter? Is there some kind of secret to this? Karin The big secret -- but it is not well-kept - is the order of Karin filters. You can move them up and down in the Filter Menus. Karin Try to fiddle a bit and watch the results. It's great to be part of this forum because I get suspicious if a 3 minute mail check cycle goes by without new mail. A first weeks impression from a 7 year veteran of basic email: I HATE fixed fonts!!! This is the first time I've been forced to use them and I vote for letting my email look the way I want it to and since I've never in my life written a text block or a table to email I think I deserve it! I like New Times Roman fonts. I'd like to see auto complete for addresses. I NEED auto correct in the spell checker becuase my fingers are ignorant adn always gets certain words wrong. :-) Filters should be simple questions: Do you want to File this message to a certain place? Delete this message and every one like it? Delete them from the server too? I strongly suggest the writers look closely at Forte' Agent's filter structure.It's simple enough for even me to use. I admit I copied and pasted the complicated filter strings from numerous choices in the help files and posted on news groups and web pages. Whoops..I'm ranting againThank you for the help. I'll keep working on filters and looking for a fixed font I can read without smudging the monitor. jack -- later, jbelkmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com To send a message to the list moderation team double click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- You are subscribed as : archive@jab.org
Re[2]: filter problems and questions.
Thank you Januk, I'm a good bit more confused now than I was when I was really lost. I think I understand that this program is WY more than I need to write email and send a picture or text file every now and then. I explain technical nuances of fairly complicated mechanical devices to Federal Court juries for a living and pride myself on being able to make them understand them. But now it's me that has that 'possum in the headlights look'. Please think simple and easy. I only have three kinds of email: 1) email from people I know. 2) People I don't know. 3) People I don't want to know. 1) Those I know I separate into folders, Jokes, Patent info, etc.. Some of these folders receive mail from one person with one email all the way to one box that receives mail from nearly 50 people using a total of 150 or so return addresses. 2) These are infrequently people in group one using still another email address, but more often are people or companies contacting me for business or personal stuff. A fair amount of spam gets here by spam bot harvesting from usenet post and unsecure email (Congress is the worst). From this folder I drag and drop into folders like Keep, Information, Answer Later, etc. 3) These are spam and obscure newsletters seldom read and sometimes something good that got caught by a filter. Anything seen to be spam is promoted to "Delete from server", which I see as the ultimate filter. I don't want to see it ever again. Many times these are whole domains. That's all I want to do. Sort through the mail just exactly like I do it with snail mail. I throw away the junk without opening it. I don't care how many gazillion dollars I've already won or how much toilet paper cost. The mail that is important like personal letters, bills, and really bad threats of collection, etc. I sit this pile aside so I can later sit and read.or hide. The third batch is opened while standing over the trash can...most of it goes in. When I recognize a certain signal of snail spam (Is that cheap escargot?) like an odd lack of identifying address or postmark, it is soon promoted to being thrown away in the first sorting. I tried to do it Eudora for a month and ask for the same help but could never get my point across I guess. Is this any better? jack Tuesday, September 19, 2000, 8:03:46 PM, you wrote: Januk Hello Karin, Januk On Tuesday, September 19, 2000 at 03:17:16 GMT +0200 (which was 6:17 PM Januk where I live) witnesses say Karin Spaink typed: Yes, do check it on other filters as well. Having it unchecked means that once this particular filter has been invoked, TB stops filtering -- while you a\want it to go on to the next mail and the next filter. Januk I think you may have misunderstood the "continue processing" option. Januk Let's say I have a really simple filter that marks all messages from Januk TBUDL with a flag or colour group, but *does not* move them. If Januk "Continue Processing" is *not* checked, this message will not be Januk touched by any other filter. But all messages will be checked by the Januk filters. Januk So, if you have Januk filter 1 - has continue processing unchecked (doesn't move messages) Januk filter 2 - has continue processing checked (doesn't move messages) Januk filter 3 - doesn't matter Januk and Januk message 1 Januk message 2 Januk If message 1 meets the criteria for 1 and 3, only filter 1 will be Januk applied to message 1. If message 2 meets the criteria for 2 and 3, Januk then both filters 2 and 3 will be applied to message 2. Imagine me telling you how to filter. I only downloaded TB for evaluation purposes this Saturday ;-) Januk See how easy it really is to use? :) The History file in TB does part of the trick, and once you have lemma's in the Address Book, TB _will_ autocomplete. I think... Januk TB will not automatically auto-complete from the addressbook. You have Januk to use a key combination, but it escapes me at the moment. Januk (Ctrl-+ maybe?) I NEED auto correct in the spell checker becuase my fingers are ignorant adn always gets certain words wrong. :-) Januk TB's autocorrect feature is a little different than what you're used Januk to in programs like MS Word. In TB, if you type a word that is in the Januk auto correct dictionary (eg adn), the misspelled word will be Januk underlined with a square wave, as opposed to a triangular wave. Double Januk right-click on the misspelled word to replace with the correct word. Januk I personally like this better than Word style auto-correct. It helps Januk when you want to misspell a word on purpose. (Like my examples above.) Januk It is a matter of taste, but I will admit that perhaps auto-correct is Januk a bit of a misnomer. grin People here are more lenient than they appear at first sight. Ask me. I got into a fight on my first night
Re[2]: filter problems and questions.
Thanks Curtis, I'm going to study this some more. After having to use this weird text editor I'm not at all sure I'll stay with this program. I've never seen anything so clumsy to write with...and I mean that literally. I read the threads on this board concerning the text editor before I downloaded the program for trial. I didn't know what the problem was. I sure see it now. I'm sure some folks really like it, but I'm thankful I have a choice. I'm an old guy that thinks the Logitech Marble track ball is part of his right hand. Have mouse? Can do. Took me 3 years to find Ctrl C, Ctrl V. Please refer to a previous post for my very simple needs in filters. I thought I had a file of filter strings I used for years in Forte' Agent but I think they were deleted in the computer change last month. They consisted of unreadable, to me, code and expressions that includes a list of words used most by get rich quick artist, multilevel marketing schemes, find anything idiots, and whorehouses full of sailors and whole domains used by those kind of mailers. Also were things like all CAPS, $$$, !!!, and a thousand others. I have some kind of total mental paralysis when it comes to regular expressions. Imagine a constantly looping shell game in your head and you have an idea of how I feel. After the third negative reversal, if three conditions, but not two others, are met on the second repetition...etc.I just go numb. I think it's going to depend on waiting for Agent to become capable of multiple addresses, figuring out Eudora, or figuring out a way to use my "notepad" program in the BAT. I hope its the later. jack Tuesday, September 19, 2000, 8:47:55 PM, you wrote: A -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- A Hash: SHA1 A On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 18:38:21 -0600, jbelk wrote: Karin Go to the Options tab and tick Continue Processing With Other Karin Folders. A I personally have never had reason to use this option. j First, I've heard of this. It seems to not be the default but is j necessary to make the filter work right. A No, it's not necessary to make a typical filter work right. A By default, each incoming message is checked to see if it matches a A filter rules string matching criteria. Each filter rule is checked A starting from the top of the filter list and working downwards. As soon A as a filter string match is found, the matching filters actions are A applied and no other subsequent filter is applied to the same message A after that. IOW's, by default, either a single or no filter rule will be A applied to a message. A Take for example you have a message that will be filtered by filters A rules 1 and 4 in the filter set below. A Filter rule 1 A Filter rule 2 A Filter rule 3 A Filter rule 4 A By default, once a match is made with filter rule 1, the message is no A longer matched with any other filters. You have to keep this in mind. A One of the reasons why a filter will not work is if the intended message A is being filtered out by a preceding filter who's string search matches A the message. The importance of the ordering of your filters now becomes A evident. j I re-read the help files and didn't see it there. Should this box be j checked on all filters? OR just all but the last one? A I don't use this check box at all. A This option basically instructs TB! that even though the message has been A matched to a particular filter rule, to continue matching it with the A other filters. This will only work if the initial filter rule did not A move the message to another folder. j This sure is counter intuitive to my way of thinking. The FIRST j filter I set up in any program is one that blocks the hundreds of j spam messages that flood all email addys that have been around for a j while. A If you're going to put that filter first, it has to be really specific A and not inadvertently filter out good mail. I'd advise you to put the A filters for legitimate and important e-mail first on the list and then A after that, put the spam filter/s in place. j Is it a bug to add new filters at the bottom of the list?? A I note that TB! does this through the quick filter method, although A there's an option to 'override existing filters' which places the filter A at the top of the list. It's risky to put the filter at the bottom of A the list because the intended messages have to not match any filter that A precedes that last filter in order for the last filter to work with the A intended messages. j And what is the difference between the "!address" and "Presence: No j ?" Seems to me it's the same thing just more convoluted. A It just makes it more flexible. You can set your filter to be applied if A the defined string is found in the message or if it is not found in the A message. A Take for example, in my filter rules there's one that will send an A auto-reply not only when
