RG> I can RECV from GMAIL's POP. (TLS + port 995).
RG> I want to use SPAMPAL (proxy client) but so far am unable to.
RG> The login userID for GMail is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RG> As instructed, I have altered the POP server to 127.0.0.1 and
RG> altered my userID to = [EMAIL PROTECTE
Hello Bat-Folk!
Using TB! v2.12
I have SENDing thru GMAIL's POP working (TLS + port 465). I can also
RECV from GMAIL's POP. (TLS + port 995, regular auth). I want to use
SPAMPAL as I used to but so far I am unable to revc thru SPAMPAL..
The login userID for GMail is [EMAIL PROT
Hello David,
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 you wrote in
DB> I think the ^X-SpamPal refers to an x-header. How do I set one of
DB> these?
Sorry. Forgot to say, go to Options/Preferences/Message Headers and, if
you don't have a header "X-Spampal" then just add it to the header
Hello David,
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 you wrote in
DB> How should I write the filter now? Currently it is:
DB> ^X-SpamPal: SPAM, and set Location to Anywhere.
DB> I think the ^X-SpamPal refers to an x-header. How do I set one of
DB> these?
Well, here's my filter and
On 18/10/2004 at 1:39:52 AM, David M. Dickerson, [DMD] wrote:
> One person has suggested that NAV works automatically and unseen
> with TB!, which is why there is no plug-in.
This comment deserves a response here.
Most anti-virus programs come with incoming/outgoing message
monitoring, of which
installing
Windows XP Pro, Alexander, I will have System Mechanic monitor
the installation, so I will have a precise record of what is
installed and where.
Besides -- the main topic is the benefits and drawbacks of using
a tool such as SpamPal or K9 to filter e-mail before The Bat!
accepts the messages.
Hello, Mike!
On Saturday, 6 October 16 2004, Mike Rourke wrote:
MR> I used SpamPal for awhile. It can be big and slow.
MR> K9 is much faster and about 99% accurate
Thank you for your input, Mike. Ironically, someone else
sent me a private message highly recommending SpamPal for
use wi
DMD>> I have noticed that some members of TBUDL are using SpamPal
DMD>> (http://www.spampal.org/) with The Bat!.
MR> I used SpamPal for awhile. It can be big and slow. K9 is much faster and about 99%
accurate.
MR> I had bad experiences with the BayesIt plug-in for TB. I got
MR&
nly with
black- and whitelists provide good results, BUT! ...they are slow (because
each and every mail has to be checked against one or more DNS blacklists),
unless they have an "auto-whitelist" feature (which only SpamPal has, to my
knowledge) that will at least skip the test for genuine m
Hi David,
DMD> I have noticed that some members of TBUDL are using SpamPal
DMD> (http://www.spampal.org/) with The Bat!.
I used SpamPal for awhile. It can be big and slow. K9 is much faster and about 99%
accurate.
I had bad experiences with the BayesIt plug-in for TB. I got over my fea
Hi David,
On Saturday, October 16, 2004, 20:27:12, David M. Dickerson wrote:
> [anti-spam software]
I use K9 (http://keir.net/k9.html), extremely small, very very fast and
good configuration options. Accuracy about 98-99% here.
Roman
Current v
Hello, everyone!
I have noticed that some members of TBUDL are using SpamPal
(http://www.spampal.org/) with The Bat!.
Because SpamPal is probably only tangentially related to the
main topics of TBUDL, I would like to ask anyone using SpamPal
if they are satisfied with the results and if you had
Thursday, September 30, 2004, 7:47:24 AM, you wrote:
IL> Back Up yours : spamdict.bye, spamdict.idx &
IL> spamdict.lst from bayesit
IL> folder, extract downloaded file and replace this files
IL> files.
IL> Don't forget to shut down TheBat before doing it :)
OK - I'll go look again.
I suspect it
Hello Lynn,
Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 5:57:59 PM, you wrote:
IL>> Go to BayesIt home page and download the database from
IL>> them. Load it up, and you will see the difference.
> It's worth a try ... thanks!
> Ummm .. I wrote that before I'd discovered that I can't
> find the home page. I
Hallo Steve,
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 15:40:06 -0700GMT (30-9-2004, 0:40 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:
SMK> Michael,
SMK>
SMK> Current version is 3.00.00 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
SMK> http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
Note: T
Hallo Steve,
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 15:40:06 -0700GMT (30-9-2004, 0:40 +0200, where I
live), you wrote:
SMK> Michael,
SMK> I really like K9 (& POPFile), but to conserve resources on this old system I'm
Note: This moderator's interjection is a note to all readers and not
just to the person being r
rsions 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 li
Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 2:18:26 PM, you wrote:
IL> Go to BayesIt home page and download the database from
IL> them. Load it up, and you will see the difference.
It's worth a try ... thanks!
Ummm .. I wrote that before I'd discovered that I can't
find the home page. I went back through r
Hello Lynn,
Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 11:55:52 AM, you wrote:
> How would you deal with an account which has very little
> legit traffic, but seems to be a spam magnet?
> I have shifted some messages from other accounts and
> marked them 'not junk', when I remember, but it's not very
> conv
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://ww
Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 10:13:11 AM, you wrote:
RO> Yep, anything that gets far more spam than legit
RO> mail isn't worth
RO> maintaining.
No doubt you are right, but I'm having some trouble
training some my correspondents to use the other address
:-(
I'll NAG them! lol!
tnx,
--
Lynn
-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 b
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
Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 9:10:36 AM, you wrote:
RO> I'd drop it as soon as possible.
Drop what, the account?
I suppose it's worth considering ...
--
Lynn
[EMAIL PROTECTED]* * *Aun Aprendo
I'd rather be WARP'ed* * * Team OS/2
http://www.turriff.net
TBv.3.0.0.14
NT5 SP4
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
Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 5:42:48 AM, you wrote:
IL> 10-20 messages and 90% accuracy of filtering.
IL> A few hints, if you have subscribed to any mailing
IL> lists, don't mark
IL> messages as NOT Junk, put them in white list.
IL> White list and black list what you can and let the
IL> filte
>> 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?
IL> Most probable that it been taught badly.
IL> It doesn't meter which one program do you use, K9, POPF
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'
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 BayesFilt
>> 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 o
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
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
On 29-9-2004, 10:25, Nick Dutton wrote:
ND> 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... :-(
ND>
ND> SA is just perl, I had it running nicely OK on a PC a couple of years
N
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...
--
Nic
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
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.
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 bot
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
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,
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?
--
Michael L. Wilson, MBA
Ecclesiastic Philosopher
Critic
Teacher
:einsteinyoyo
Hi,
On Saturday, July 17, 2004 21:37 your local time, which was 20:37 my
local time, Charles Gerungan [CMG] wrote;
I've been on the SpamPal forums and James Farmer (SpamPals developer)
couldn't assist me with my current problems.
http://www.spampalforums.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Weaven wrote:
| CMG> Alternatively, you could connect to your IMAP server with telnet
and see
| CMG> when it times out.
| How would I go about doing this? Apologies, I heard Telnet mentioned all
| the time, but never really got around to working o
Hi Charles,
On Saturday, July 17, 2004 21:37 your local time, which was 20:37 my
local time, Charles Gerungan [CMG] wrote;
CMG> It did make sense. Did I make sense? That's why I asked you to see if
CMG> you could try with another IMAP account.
Unfortunately, I've only the one IMAP account. :-(
d make sense. Did I make sense? That's why I asked you to see if
you could try with another IMAP account.
Alternatively, you could connect to your IMAP server with telnet and see
when it times out.
CW>>> Is this correct with IMAP, as all my mail through POP has both the
CW>>> Sp
Hi Charles,
On Friday, July 16, 2004 01:50 your local time, which was 00:50 my local
time, Charles Gerungan [CMG] wrote;
CW>> 1. I tried connecting to my IMAP server straight through SpamPal with no
CW>> TLS and therefore no stunnel.
CMG> My bad. I would've thought you'
ink that this is off-topic.
CW> 1. I tried connecting to my IMAP server straight through SpamPal with no
CW> TLS and therefore no stunnel.
My bad. I would've thought you'd tried this.
CW> This again causes a the disconnection.
That's why I said "this is an stunnel iss
MAP account that I can connect to, so I'm kinda limited
with my options on this count.
I've just tried an alternative here tonight aswell;
1. I tried connecting to my IMAP server straight through SpamPal with no
TLS and therefore no stunnel.
This again causes a the disconnection.
Also, on
Hello Chris,
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:13:38 +0100 UTC, Chris Weaven wrote:
CW>>> Has anyone here successfully set-up SpamPal with Stunnel using TLS
CW>>> without having these, what appear to be, timeout problems?
CMG>> Have you considered posting this to the stunnel li
Hi Charles,
On Thursday, July 15, 2004 20:03 your local time, which was 19:03 my
local time, Charles Gerungan [CMG] wrote;
CW>> Has anyone here successfully set-up SpamPal with Stunnel using TLS
CW>> without having these, what appear to be, timeout problems?
CMG> Have you con
Hello Chris,
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:44:30 +0100 UTC, Chris Weaven wrote:
CW> Has anyone here successfully set-up SpamPal with Stunnel using TLS
CW> without having these, what appear to be, timeout problems?
Have you considered posting this to the stunnel list at mirt.net? Or,
put anoth
Hi all,
I installed SpamPal yesterday as an alternative to bayesit.
It's working fine after a few tweaks, but I'm still having a problem
with IMAP.
As I use a TLS connection, I'm having to also use stunnel aswell as
SpamPal to connect, but after some time, I hear the error nois
same time.
I just use Mygate with TB! to read PGP conferences as TB! and PGP work very
easily together.
--
Regards,
Richard
| Using The Bat! 2.10.03 & SpamPal
| Windows XP (build 2600), version 5.1 Service Pack 1
Current version is 2.10
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello Richard,
On 03 May 2004, 03:17 Richard Wakeford [RW] in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RW> Still trying! Still no success either :-(
Just one more suggestion... use BayesIt and/or 40tude! :-))
- --
As ever,
Martin Webster
Jabber mjw | ICQ 158
Hello Martin,
On Sun, 2 May 2004 you wrote in <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Still trying! Still no success either :-(
--
Regards,
Richard
| Using The Bat! 2.10.03 & SpamPal
| Windows XP (build 2600), version 5.1 Service Pack 1
Curre
ore you go any further, set up an account on TB! to read news from
localhost:1110. If that work, then proceed with SpamPal.
MW>> (pop3 server localhost:1110)
RW> Can't find where to set that one.
If this isn't set then Mygate and SpamPal won't be able to communicate
with eac
feed (hostname:119) ->
Yes
MW> (nntp server hostname:119) Mygate (pop3 gate localhost:1110) ->
Both yes
MW> (pop3 server localhost:1110)
Can't find where to set that one.
MW> SpamPal (proxy localhost:) ->
Yes
MW> (pop3 server localhost:) TB!
Yes and I have Tra
Hello Martin,
On Sat, 1 May 2004 you wrote in <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MW> It's more likely to be this...
MW> NNTP 119 (ISP)
Yes, that's what it's set to.
MW> Mygate 110 (gate 127.0.0.1)
Can't do that as my TB! mail account uses that so I've set up
Hello Martin,
On Sat, 1 May 2004 you wrote in <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MW> POP3 110 (ISP)
MW> SpamPal 110 (SpamPal local proxy 127.0.0.1)
MW> Mygate 110 (gate 127.0.0.1) >1100 (local server 127.0.0.1)
MW> TB! 1100 (127.0.0.1)
Well, as far as I can see those are the settings
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I'm posting this here as I feel it's a general rather than Beta
question.
I've tried with all sorts of settings and just can't get SpamPal to
recognise Mygate at all. In Mygate I have my NNTP server as port 119 and
I'
Hi Joseph,
> I've been happy using SpamPal and some plug-ins, including the
> Bayesian filter, with TB! Is there any reason I should consider
> switching to Bayesit?
I've just gone the other way! Ditched Bayesit and configured Spampal (plus Bayesian).
Very happy wi
Hello Joseph,
Friday, March 12, 2004, 10:18:06 AM, you wrote:
JN> I've been happy using SpamPal and some plug-ins, including the
JN> Bayesian filter, with TB! Is there any reason I should consider
JN> switching to Bayesit?
I prefer the plug in for my own particular reasons ...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Joseph,
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:18:06 + (UTC) (10:18 AM here), Joseph N.
[JN] wrote in <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
JN> I've been happy using SpamPal and some plug-ins, including the
JN> Bayesian filter, with TB! Is there an
I've been happy using SpamPal and some plug-ins, including the
Bayesian filter, with TB! Is there any reason I should consider
switching to Bayesit?
--
JN
Current version is 2.04.7 | 'Using TBUDL' information:
http://www.s
Hello Jean,
Monday, January 26, 2004, 6:50:51 AM, you wrote:
JS> What FWIW stands for ?
JS> Thanks for help.
It stands for "For What It's Worth"
You might find the NetLingo site helpful for looking these up (there
are so many acronyms in use!)
http://www.netlingo.com/lookup.cfm?term=f
Hello ken,
Monday, January 26, 2004, 12:26:42 AM, you wrote:
kg> FWIW, anyone setting up SpamPal on The Bat should shut down and re-start
kg> TB after setting up an IMAP server the first time.
kg> I thought it was an upgrade/latest version issue, but it happened again
kg> with the
Steve Thomas wrote:
> Also, Ken, please note that my experience with TB and SpamPal is with
> version 2.02. I have no idea how all this will work with version 1.6.
Sorry for the confusion. I am running two versions of The Bat on my
desktop and laptop. My laptop has The Bat 2.03 CE ins
Hello ken,
Sunday, January 25, 2004, 3:26:42 PM, you wrote:
kg> Ken Green
kg> Using The Bat! v1.62r on Windows 2000 5.0 Build 2195 Service Pack 4
Also, Ken, please note that my experience with TB and SpamPal is with
version 2.02. I have no idea how all this will work with versi
FWIW, anyone setting up SpamPal on The Bat should shut down and re-start
TB after setting up an IMAP server the first time.
I thought it was an upgrade/latest version issue, but it happened again
with the second IMAP account I set up. I would get login errors trying
to connect to the IMAP server
Is anyone here using SpamPal with TB accessing IMAP accounts? SpamPal
claims to work with both POP and IMAP servers, but I keep getting errors
checking an IMAP account:
SpamPal: Error communicating with server!
The IMAP4 server returned an unexpected response:
SPAL3 NO SELECT failed: Can't
G'day Prezes,
Sunday, October 5, 2003, 1:28:11 AM, Prezes wrote:
> Hello TBUDL list,
> I have 54 mail accounts. Recently I have installed SpamPal (then
> K9). And I have a problem: in 43/54 accounts there is "Cannot
> But in K9 there is no option to listening i
Hello TBUDL list,
I have 54 mail accounts. Recently I have installed SpamPal (then
K9). And I have a problem: in 43/54 accounts there is "Cannot
connect to server". Configuration is OK (127.0.0.1, etc). Where I
check for example 1 account manually there is everythin OK, but when
On Thursday, October 2, 2003, 2:18:22 PM, Joseph N. wrote:
JN>> The other problem is that SpamPal sometimes just spins and spins
JN>> and does not ever allow downloading; the process has to be
JN>> terminated through Windows.
> To answer part of my own query, it seems the
On Thursday, October 02, 2003, Joseph N. wrote in
<mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
JN> The other problem is that SpamPal sometimes just spins and spins
JN> and does not ever allow downloading; the process has to be
JN> terminated through Windows.
To answer part of my own query, it se
I am having two problems, and I cannot determine whether they are
related or where they are originating. (Background here is that I have
my messages set to remain on the server for four days or until emptied
from trash; I have SpamPal set up with the RegEx, URL Body, and
Bayesian filters; and I
On Friday, August 1, 2003, 7:36:05 PM, Bareges wrote:
> What I can't resolve is how I incorporate the
> "pop3.norton.antivirus" that appears from my searching to be
> required for TB to activate AV.
You don't need to. Norton scans email at the port level, so does it
irrespective of the client ema
Good Evening,
As the very first post ever I apologise if I don't get it right.
I would very much appreciate guidance on how I configure TB to run
Norton AV 2003 whilst using Spampal.
For those not familar with Spampal [ free spam killer app ] it sits
between your email client and the Ne
s and not
just to the person being replied to, even if their post may have
instigated this reply. Please don't feel singled out John.
Leif already interjected that this thread be stopped.
It's becoming a high traffic thread with very little useful returns at
this juncture. We've al
Hello John, you wrote:
>> well, I just got rid of spampal, not because it didn't work
> LOL, yeaH right
> I guess not all software is idiot-proof
whoops I thought you were saying that it didn't work.
I see you said "not because it didn't work"
My Appo
Hello Paul, you wrote:
> well, I just got rid of spampal, not because it didn't work
LOL, yeaH right
I guess not all software is idiot-proof
--
John Morse
pagemaker -at- semo -dot- net
Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBUDL"
Hello MAU, you wrote:
> Can I say that I doubt it? :-)
Yes, you can, but have you tried SpamPal?
I can honestly say I have used both!
And Popfile's stats will fool you, believe me I know, I used Popfile.
Popfile uses only Bayesian, SpamPal uses a combination of effective spam fighting
te
On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 4:19 PM, you wrote:
nwd> 15-Jul-2003 22:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> well, I just got rid of spampal, not because it didn't work, but because
>> I finally noticed that the slowdown in receiving mail was only on the
>> accounts that had sp
15-Jul-2003 22:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> well, I just got rid of spampal, not because it didn't work, but because
> I finally noticed that the slowdown in receiving mail was only on the
> accounts that had spampal setup. Now I am back to getting my mail FAST.
I'd say
On Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 3:19 PM, you wrote:
>> SpamPal also makes less mistakes than PopFile.
M> Can SpamPal do much better than 99,71% accuracy? I doubt it, because
M> even 100% isn't that much more ;-)
well, I just got rid of spampal, not because it didn't work,
Hello John,
> But imagine my surprise... Now I have to say, without a doubt, that
> SpamPal is better than PopFile.
Can I say that I doubt it? :-)
> SpamPal also makes less mistakes than PopFile.
Can SpamPal do much better than 99,71% accuracy? I doubt it, because
even 100% isn&#x
Hello neurowerx, you wrote:
> I wonder why many people are using Bayes filtering as the only measure
> again spam. 95% of the spam I get is being caught by SpamPal "alone" (DNS
> blacklist feature). I only use the Bayesian plugin to Spampal as an
> addition (the few mails tha
On Saturday, 7 Jun 2003 18:00 [-0400] Peter Kerekes in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Until now I loaded Spampal at startup, (Windows 98), however I don't
> think it is necessary.
>
> Is there a way to load Spampal only automatically when I load BAT, and
> close it automatica
Hello neurowerx,
On June 8, 2003, 09:51, you wrote:
nwd> 08-Jun-2003 00:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Until now I loaded Spampal at startup, (Windows 98), however I don't
>> think it is necessary.
nwd> It may not be the answer you wanted... but...
nwd> Here, SpamPa
08-Jun-2003 00:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Until now I loaded Spampal at startup, (Windows 98), however I don't
> think it is necessary.
It may not be the answer you wanted... but...
Here, SpamPal requires 6.5MB of memory while running... are you really that
low on memory?
Until now I loaded Spampal at startup, (Windows 98), however I don't
think it is necessary.
Is there a way to load Spampal only automatically when I load BAT, and
close it automatically when I close BAT?
TIA
--
Best regards,
Peter Kerekes from Toronto, Canada
On Sunday, April 06, 2003, Joseph N. wrote in
<mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
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 le
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> <mid:[EMA
On Saturday, April 05, 2003, David Calvarese wrote in
<mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
DC> http://www.spampal.org
David and Luc,
Thank you. I'll try Spampal. One question about setup, though.
Normally, I would have TB! connecting on port x to my AV's POPscanner,
which then c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
12:52:45 PM (GMT -05:00)
RE: "Off Topic: Opinions / Differences between SpamPal and PopFile"
Greetings Newsacct,
On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, 9:12:51 AM, you wrote:
N> The bad news is that I can't use PoPF
Hello Newsacct,
> The bad news is that I can't use PoPFile OR SpamPal any longer as my
> corporate email account is now authenticating using APOP and from what
> I can see, neither of the two programs supports that. :(
Is APOP the same than SPA/AUTH? I don't know myself b
Hello Miguel,
The bad news is that I can't use PoPFile OR SpamPal any longer as my
corporate email account is now authenticating using APOP and from what
I can see, neither of the two programs supports that. :(
Shame.
I "can" use it for my two other personal accounts though. Hr
Hello Newsacct,
> Can anyone that has tried or used both of these tell me the
> differences between the two and which one you think is better and why.
To me POPFile is best, no doubt. But you should try both and decide
yourself.
--
Best regards,
Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Hello TBUDL,
Can anyone that has tried or used both of these tell me the
differences between the two and which one you think is better and why.
Sorry for the off topic post but I figured you all would be able to
help me the most since I want to use either of these with The Bat.
Tha
Good afternoon David,
It was foretold that on 14-3-2003 @ 08:44:28 GMT-0500 (which was
14:44:28 where I live) David Calvarese would mumble:
DC> I just thought I'd mention that there's now a SpamPal mailing list
DC> in English on Yahoo. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spampal
Hello All,
I know this is off topic, but since I know some people on this list
use SpamPal, I just thought I'd mention that there's now a SpamPal
mailing list in English on Yahoo. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spampal-en/
--
Best regards,
David
He who hesitates is constipated.
Usi
se anything programmed by Selective Download for
D>> deletion without reception.
PF> SpamPal needs the mail to "pass through" it so that the headers can be
PF> altered as mentioned. This way it can be filtered locally.
PF> I wanted to be able to:
PF> Download the header
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
