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 do
MA your own filtering is evaporating. My friend told me boastfully about
MA how his Iowa (USA) ISP was Filtering his mail
-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
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
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
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
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
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
Mark,
Thursday, June 12, 2003, 3:50:17 PM, you wrote:
M I think there are two schools of thought here. I for one prefer to
M deal with spam with my own filters - the absolute last thing I want
M is for some third party tool to decide what mail I get. I want to
M understand EXACTLY how my mail is
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
Mike,
Friday, June 13, 2003, 9:49:12 AM, you wrote:
MA To this author, e-mail is text; HTML belongs on the web; HTML in
MA e-mail is spam.
MA Read my lips: Not a thing draconian about that logic.
Ain't irony great? Anyway, if you're really interested in the topic,
you might want to read:
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
Hello,
Friday, June 13, 2003, 6:49:12 PM, you wrote:
MA 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
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
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
Hello,
Friday, June 13, 2003, 7:44:22 PM, you wrote:
MA Fine. Those who created e-mail, and I was present for that, are
MA declared the losers, and those who want to send pretty flowers and
MA silly pink backgrounds with their e-mails (never mind that it gets
MA bloated 10-times necessary
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
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
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
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!
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
Hello,
Friday, June 13, 2003, 8:10:43 PM, you wrote:
nwd Whilst I'm not a moderator of this list, may I remind the majority of you
nwd who are chatting in this thread that this list is about an email program
nwd called The Bat!, and not Spam filtering, the internet and privacy, and
nwd whatnot.
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
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
-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.
Dear Bats
Here is a regex spam filter folks might find useful
It picks up emails addressed to a whole bunch of people with the
same starting letter or the same domain, eg in my case something
like.
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
or
[EMAIL
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
On Thursday, June 12, 2003, Roman Katzer wrote in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
RK SAProxy is a Windows incarnation of SpamAssassin, a very widely
RK used and thoroughly perfected spam filter which looks for all
RK kinds of clues in a mail. It gives positive points for spam
RK indicators and negative
RK Hi Mark,
RK That is a good way to start, but there are more powerful spam filters.
RK SAProxy is a Windows incarnation of SpamAssassin, a very widely used and
RK ...
RK training but seems pretty stable and dependable.
I think there are two schools of thought here. I for one prefer
to deal
Hello,
Friday, June 13, 2003, 1:02:32 AM, you wrote:
CK There's only one problem that I saw, which is
CK negligible. If one receives an e-mail with a large attachment, K9
CK chews on it for quite some time. You can give it a try here:
CK http://keir.net .
I have just checked. The new 1.05
Hello,
Thursday, June 12, 2003, 11:44:19 PM, you wrote:
RK Hi Mark,
RK On Thursday, June 12, 2003, 23:17:05, Mark wrote:
Here is a regex spam filter folks might find useful
RK That is a good way to start, but there are more powerful spam filters.
RK [...]
I used spampal with quite good
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
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
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
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
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
35 matches
Mail list logo
