15-Jul-2003 21:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I don't know about other Bayesian filters but for POPFile, for example
> IP addresses are just "words" that it can use to classify messages. And
> it sure does learn and use IP lists.
Good point. However, I believe that DNS blacklists are updated fast
Hello neurowerx,
> Good point. However, I believe that DNS blacklists are updated faster than
> popfile will "learn" IP addresses when you teach them manually.
I don't teach IPs to POPFile. It learns by itself. The only thing I tell
POPFile is if a message it has classified as spam and it isn't,
Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 2:28:47 PM, Dave Kennedy wrote:
DK> Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 3:09:00 PM, MAU wrote:
M>> Are you using any filter to sort messages classified as spam
M>> by POPFile? If so, this filter should be placed _before_ the
M>> Known filter.
DK> I'
Hello Dave,
> I've got the Known filter first. Sometimes people I want to get
> e-mail from will send a note that has spam-like material in it. I
> don't want to lose those messages.
Loose messages No matter what method, program, filter, whatever, you
use to detect
Hello Terry,
Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 2:03:03 PM, you wrote:
T> I use Popfile alone because it *doesn't* use DNS blacklists. I have
T> philosophical issues with DNS blacklists. And, at 99% + accuracy,
T> Popfile makes it really easy for me to stick to my principles. :)
This is not directed at Te
Hello Dave,
M>> Anyway, if you put your Known filter first, you will see some
M>> spam messages "leaking through" as you say in your original
M>> post.
>
> I don't mind the leaking per se; it's not understanding the
> reason for the leak that is k
16-Jul-2003 17:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm telling you but you don't belive me. The reason for the leaks is you
> put your Known filter first :-)
What Dave Kennedy wants to know is which fields of a message DOES the Known
filter compare with the given address book?
Yo
Hello Alexander,
> What Dave Kennedy wants to know is which fields of a message DOES the Known
> filter compare with the given address book?
>
> You know, FROM, TO, REPLY-TO, etc. etc.
Ah, that? I didn't know he was asking that ;-)
It's the Sender's address. At l
Hello Alexander,
> 16-Jul-2003 17:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd prefer you don't quote my e-mail address in the body.
Thanks,
--
Best regards,
Miguel A. Urech (El Escorial - Spain)
Using The Bat! v1.62i
Current version is 1.62r | "Using TB
On Wed 16-Jul-03 3:56pm -0400, MAU wrote:
> And what is "sender"? Help/Find/sender :)
Could you be more specific - i.e. which of the 25 topics returned?
I know Sender checks From:, Sender:, Reply-To: and Return-Path: but I
didn't find a definitive list. Have I missed any?
--
Best regards,
Bi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Bill,
@16-Jul-2003, 16:31 -0400 (21:31 UK time) Bill McCarthy [BM] in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to MAU:
>> And what is "sender"? Help/Find/sender :)
BM> Could you be more specific - i.e. which of the 25 topics
BM> returned?
BM> I know Sender c
On Wed 16-Jul-03 4:37pm -0400, Marck D Pearlstone wrote:
> @16-Jul-2003, 16:31 -0400 (21:31 UK time) Bill McCarthy [BM] in
> mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said to MAU:
>>> And what is "sender"? Help/Find/sender :)
BM>> Could you be more specific - i.e. which of the 25 topics
BM>> returned?
BM>> I know
Hello Bill,
> Could you be more specific - i.e. which of the 25 topics returned?
Not rally, I didn't read them all. I didn't even count them like you
did.
> I know Sender checks From:, Sender:, Reply-To: and Return-Path: but I
> didn't find a definitive list. Have I missed any?
I think you are
Hello Dave,
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:22:53 -0400 GMT (17/07/03, 04:22 +0700 GMT),
Dave Kennedy wrote:
> So, now the question becomes - what next? Hmmm. I looked at the
> suggestion of creating my own Known filter, but the choice in the
> Location column is TB!'s generic (and per
right, back in <mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I
wrote to you:
,
| It's true that spammers sometimes put your email address in one
| of the "sender" fields, such as Return-Path.
`
> So, now the question becomes - what next
On Wed 16-Jul-03 7:01pm -0400, Thomas Fernandez wrote:
> I have a question to those who have their own address in their AB:
> What is the reason? - If you keep BBC'ing yourself, you type your own
> address into the BBC field once, and the history function will always
> autocomplete (faster than d
Hello Bill,
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:14:54 -0400 GMT (17/07/03, 11:14 +0700 GMT),
Bill McCarthy wrote:
>> I have a question to those who have their own address in their AB:
>> What is the reason?
> For both BCCing and test mails to myself. I don't like auto complete
> turned on. It's much easie
Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 10:37:12 PM, MikeD wrote:
> So I will never use a black list to determine spam. So far I am still
> trying to get something bayesian that will work for me. I have hopes
> for the new bayesian plug-in for TB.
Does anyone have any more information on this plugin? For insta
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Audiac,
@19-Jul-2003, 19:31 +0200 (18:31 UK time) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [A] in
mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>> So I will never use a black list to determine spam. So far I am
>> still trying to get something bayesian that will work for me. I
>> have
Hi Doug.
At 4:32 PM on Wednesday, October 02, 2002 you
[DW] wrote the following about ''Known'
Filter and adding address book':
DW> I can't see how to add an address book to this. Nothing in the
DW> help file, couldn't find anything in the archives useful.
D
Hallo Doug,
On Wed, 02 Oct 2002 21:32:18 +0100GMT (2-10-02, 22:32 +0200GMT, where
I live), you wrote:
DW> I can't see how to add an address book to this.
You can't add address books to the known filter. It only uses the
default AB.
I can remember discussions on this list why s
Hi Roelof,
Wednesday, October 2, 2002, 9:58:29 PM, you wrote:
> Hallo Doug,
> On Wed, 02 Oct 2002 21:32:18 +0100GMT (2-10-02, 22:32 +0200GMT, where
> I live), you wrote:
DW>> I can't see how to add an address book to this.
> You can't add address books to the kn
Hallo Doug,
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 22:25:07 +0100GMT (2-10-02, 23:25 +0200GMT, where I
live), you wrote:
DW>>> I can't see how to add an address book to this.
>> You can't add address books to the known filter. It only uses the
>> default AB.
DW> They are all in
over my previous
MR>>> version (1.53t), and I don't see any "Inbox-Known" folders. However -
MR>>> if I look in my sorting office for each account, I see a currently
MR>>> *inactive* "known" incoming filter.
>> Just create a new folder
[GMT -0800] (16:55 Monday where I
live):-
MR>>>> I'm a bit curious about this too. I installed v1.60 over my previous
MR>>>> version (1.53t), and I don't see any "Inbox-Known" folders. However -
MR>>>> if I look in my sorting office for eac
ious about this too. I installed v1.60 over my previous
MR>>>>> version (1.53t), and I don't see any "Inbox-Known" folders. However -
MR>>>>> if I look in my sorting office for each account, I see a currently
MR>>>>> *inactive* "known&q
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Marck,
Sorry Marck, I genuinely forgot.
- --
Best regards,
Dave Wilson.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(E-mail me subject: 'public key' and I will send it to you)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 6.5.8ckt Build 06
iQA/AwUBPJ9MmIuowXdtlnXzEQIj+AC
Monday, March 25, 2002, 3:44:48 PM, you wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:42:44 -0800, Roberto Machorro [RM] graced us with
> these comments:
> ...
RM>> I think that the "Inbox - Known" is a good idea, but I wou
> What we want is the other half which would allow you to say "IF not
> in the address book, then direct the message here.
The program already has it. Office Sorting/Filters, look under the
Advanced tab.
Current Ver: 1.60 / 1.60a
FAQ
although that will need some studying ;-)
Other question I couldn't find, what is the purpose of the
inbox-known?
--
Best regards,
Marionmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Current Ver: 1.60 / 1.60a
FAQ: htt
Friday, March 29, 2002, 7:40:38 AM, Marion scribbled:
M> Right! I have been using Eudora for 7 years now, never really
M> configuring it from scratch, but lately it has been playing trics on
M> me and making some messages disappear in cyberspace. So I decided to
M> try The Bat!
This is of great
Hello Michael,
Friday, March 29, 2002, 4:47:33 PM, you wrote:
MD> This is of great comfort to me, as I thought I was the only one having
MD> this problem with Eudora. I guess when they put in the adware, they
MD> broke something else. Also, Qualcomm seems to have lost interest in
MD> the p
wned horse out of the water. But since the discussion I read about
> creating a spamfilter I thought about this again. (and someone :)
> called this thing a zombie anyway, so.. ;)
> I was just thinking.. Why doesn't Ritlabs skip the whole idea of that
> Inbox-known folder.. If th
On 2-4-2002 at 21:46, Gene Gough wrote:
> Well, many, many of us just edited the filter to point it at a folder
> of choice and then got rid of the Unknown folder. Pretty simple.
I did so too. And I'm sorry for bringing this up again, and this is
the last I've got to say about it:
I hate stupi
Hi Haico,
On Tuesday, April 2, 2002 at 21:35:50 [GMT +0200], you wrote:
H> Why not make the opposite, and create something like a junk-folder.
H> (this has been mentioned before)You can also make a basic-filter with
H> more options for dealing with spam..
You have my vote for this one. And I kno
Agreed that the implementation was actually backwards from what was
desired and actually didn't do anything that wasn't possible before.
What it did do was make me think more about it and investigate the
address book idea enough to make a spam filter that is very low
maintenance.
The nice thin
But since the discussion I read about
> creating a spamfilter I thought about this again. (and someone :)
> called this thing a zombie anyway, so.. ;)
> I was just thinking.. Why doesn't Ritlabs skip the whole idea of that
> Inbox-known folder.. If they got any sense on this matter, th
Hi again,
Thanks for the reactions.. I thought I was gonna be skinned
alive ;-)for bringing this up again. But I'm glad I did.. Made me
think more about filtering and keeping the Inbox clean.
And:
I don't post much on mailinglist. And since posting to this one I got
two spam-mails.. Normally I g
I've split my address book into two - work folks and personal folks.
Can I make an "Inbox - Known" rule for each address book?
Thanks
-John
Current Ver: 1.60h
FAQ: http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
Unsubscribe
Hello Michael,
On Tue, 21 May 2002 18:25:04 -0700 GMT (22/05/02, 08:25 +0700 GMT),
Michael S. Greenbaum wrote:
MSG> Is this a problem on my computer or with the program?
It's not a problem, it's a new feature.
MSG> Meanwhile, can anyone tell me what this Inbox-Known is, why
Hi,
It is the only one filter...
WilWilWil
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
==Original message text===
From: Edgar van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, May 25, 2004, 8:38:38 AM
Subject: Problem with mail and $K
On Thursday, June 26, 2003 7:54 PM, Bill wrote:
BM> I don't like the Know filter at all and don't use it because of its
BM> bugs on replying from Inbox-Known.
What bugs?
Dave Kennedy
Current version is 1.62r | "Using TBU
Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 12:52:27 PM, MikeD wrote:
M> Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 8:49:16 AM, Dave K wrote:
DK>> What is the logic for the "Inbox - Known" automatic
DK>> filtering in conjunction with the address book?
M> The problem is that enough spammers have figu
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't that much more
Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 3:09:00 PM, MAU wrote:
M> Are you using any filter to sort messages classified as spam
M> by POPFile? If so, this filter should be placed _before_ the
M> Known filter.
I've got the Known filter first. Sometimes people I want to get
e-mail from will send a
On Tuesday, July 15, 2003 at 6:38 PM, neurowerx 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 mail
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, but because
I finally notic
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 that depends on how freq
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 spampal setup. Now I am back t
Hello neurowerx,
Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 2:32:42 PM, you wrote:
nwd> 15-Jul-2003 21:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I don't know about other Bayesian filters but for POPFile, for example
>> IP addresses are just "words" that it can use to classify messages. And
>> it sure does learn and use IP l
Hello Terry, you wrote:
> And, at 99% + accuracy, Popfile makes it really easy for me to stick
> to my principles. :)
This is always the main point that Popfile users stick too.
I too (although losing many "good" emails) was assured by Popfile itself that it
was doing such a
good job why
Hello MikeD, you wrote:
> The problem with 'black lists' is that inevitably there are a lot of
> people on them that should not be.
Did you know that you can "un-check" this feature from SpamPal if you do not wish to
use it?
--
John Morse
pagemaker -at- semo -dot- net
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Morse, [JM] wrote:
JM> whoops I thought you were saying that it didn't work.
JM> I see you said "not because it didn't work"
JM> My Appologies!
Note: This moderator's interjection is a note to all readers and not
just to the person being r
Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 4:07:53 PM, WL wrote:
W> Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 2:28:47 PM, Dave Kennedy wrote:
DK>> I've got the Known filter first. Sometimes people I want to
DK>> get e-mail from will send a note that has spam-like material
DK>> in it.
W> ...but that def
en around on Usenet & the Internet
since 1994 every spam list in the world has me on their list.
So, reeling this back around to TB!, that is my reason for
putting the Known filter first.
M> Anyway, if you put your Known filter first, you will see some
M> spam messages "leaking through&
Tuesday, July 15, 2003, 5:54:23 PM, Allie wrote:
A> This thread has now been declared DEAD . as in DEAD
A> HORSE!!
I wasn't trying to get a POPFile/SpamPal battle going.
What I'm trying to do is learn what the logic/algorithm is that
TB! uses for the Known filter.
Wednesday, July 16, 2003, 11:53:18 AM, Alexander wrote:
A> 16-Jul-2003 17:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A> What Dave Kennedy wants to know is which fields of a message
A> DOES the Known filter compare with the given address book?
A> You know, FROM, TO, REPLY-TO, etc. etc.
Thank yo
's the culprit. I
checked ~30 spams with my e-mail in the To: that didn't leak and
none have it in the Return-Path.
So, now the question becomes - what next? Hmmm. I looked at the
suggestion of creating my own Known filter, but the choice in the
Location column is TB!'s generic (and
Wednesday, July 16, 2003, 7:01:34 PM, Thomas wrote:
T> I have a question to those who have their own address in their
T> AB: What is the reason?
My reasons are pretty simple. I have many mail groups - tennis
team, swim team board, basketball board, school parents, etc.
(Hmmm. There's a theme there
Hello Marck,
MDP> There is no definitive list that I know of. We'll have to beg for a
MDP> straight answer from one of the programmers. Maybe we should ask on
MDP> TBBETA?
The list is right. Currently, From, Reply-To, Return-Path and Sender
fields are used. I've seen the message from Bill about
Hi,
I think the old bug-reporting changed, but I can't find or remember
where it goes now, so herewith my findings...
Just upgraded to 1.60h, running NT4.
I found I couldn't move the "Inbox - Known" folder into a sub-folder,
and it's not a feature I want right now. Th
Hello John.
At 1:03 PM on Friday, May 03, 2002 you wrote the following
about [separate Inbox-Known for each address book]:
John> I've split my address book into two - work folks and
John> personal folks. Can I make an "Inbox - Known" rule for
John> each address book?
Hello Thomas!
On Wednesday, May 22, 2002 at 8:07:31 AM you wrote:
MSG>> and how I get rid of it if I don't want it?
> Don't know.
For all those who couldn't follow the lists in the past few weeks -
and those that don't know what an archive is:
Got to your Sorting Office and disable the filte
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 that get thru first place
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
techniques.
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" information:
http:/
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 Appologies!
--
John Morse
pagemaker -at- sem
At Saturday, May 4, 2002, 4:15:31 AM, role+the wrote:
> Hi,
> I think the old bug-reporting changed, but I can't find or remember
> where it goes now, so herewith my findings...
> Just upgraded to 1.60h, running NT4.
> I found I couldn't move the "Inbox - Known&qu
Hey Miles,
My MUA believes you used The Bat! (v1.53d) Personal
to write the following on Friday, June 14, 2002 at 3:03:31 PM.
TM>> [+] The incoming mail filter for moving messages from
TM>> known senders to a special folder so the Inbox can be left for
TM>> unknown sender
reated a lot less havoc among TB users, AND generated a lot more
> business in these spam-crazed times - would have been for Ritlabs to create
> a folder called "unknown" for all the spam... and to implement an easy,
> customer-friendly way to customize it.
Which is the Inbox
On 27-3-2002 at 12:49, Michael Disabato wrote:
Hi Michael,
> Tuesday, March 26, 2002, 2:37:39 PM, Gene scribbled:
GG>> OK, now I understand what you mean. I don't understand why that is a
GG>> problem. Just disable it and move to the bottom.
> It's a matter of aesthetics and performance. I d
On 27-3-02 at 17:19, Haico kindly wrote:
> On 27-3-2002 at 12:49, Michael Disabato wrote:
['known- filter]
GG>>> OK, now I understand what you mean. I don't understand why that is a
GG>>> problem. Just disable it and move to the bottom.
>> It's a mat
MS> Is the filter set to active?
Nope - wasn't beforehand, and still isn't.
I hadn't realised how reliant I'd become on my handful of filters over
the months (years?) now that everything's being dumped in the same
folder, it's much harder to keep track!!
--
Best regards,
James
Hello Mike,
Saturday, May 4, 2002, 6:31:01 AM, you digitally penned the following;
MS> At Saturday, May 4, 2002, 4:15:31 AM, role+the wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I think the old bug-reporting changed, but I can't find or remember
>> where it goes now, so herewith my findings...
>> Just upgraded to 1.60h
On Sat, 4 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> MS> Is the filter set to active?
>
> Nope - wasn't beforehand, and still isn't.
>
> I hadn't realised how reliant I'd become on my handful of filters over
> the months (years?) now that everything's being dumped in the same
> folder, it's much harder
Jonathan,
JA> Not sure if this is helpful... Have you made sure that you have
JA> the "Continue processing" set? I cannot remember the full name. It
JA> may have become switched off some how... and as soon as it hits
JA> that rule, it has no reason to continue processing.
The problem is actually
On Sun, 5 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Jonathan,
>
> JA> Not sure if this is helpful... Have you made sure that you have
> JA> the "Continue processing" set? I cannot remember the full name. It
> JA> may have become switched off some how... and as soon as it hits
> JA> that rule, it has no
TM> [+] The incoming mail filter for moving messages from known
TM> senders to a special folder so the Inbox can be left for unknown
TM> senders and spam :-)
Well I've been trying to figure this out ever since it was implemented, seen
all kinds of people upset about this... It bo
It seems that Miles Johnson said ...
M> I'm sticking to 1.53... Do others feel the same way?
In a word, no.
Using The Bat! v1.60q on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600
--
Bill Blinn, Technology Editor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - 6/14/2002 at 3:31 PM
Technology Corner on Newsradio 610 WTVN, Columbus, Ohio
TED]>
To: WilWilWil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, May 25, 2004, 9:36:09 PM
Subject: Mod: Top posting (was: Problem with mail and $KNOWN$ folder...)
LG> Hi WilWilWil,
LG> On Tue, 25 May 2004, at 21:33:11 [GMT +0200] (which was 1:33 PM where
LG> I live) you wrote:
W>> It is
Hello WilWilWil,
Wednesday, May 26, 2004, 9:49:00 AM, you wrote:
WilWilWil> I apologize if I do not respect rules. You explain these
WilWilWil> rules but I am French and I've a lot of difficulties to
WilWilWil> understand what was wrong in my post and what you explain
WilWilWil> to me.
No problem
Ta-dah!
I've found the cause and thought I should share with community and
developers, so here goes. Many thanks to all that responded with
ideas, too!
It turns out that during some aspect of the upgrade process from 1.53d
through 1.60h to 1.60j (current), and/or deleting my "Inb
Hello Greg,
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:35:44 -0500 GMT (28/06/03, 22:35 +0700 GMT),
Greg Strong wrote:
> I want to keep running dialog of all email correspondence. I think
> having incorporated into the interface would make it more user
> friendly.
I have a seconder! :-)
Now let me find this wishli
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, at 12:19:34 [GMT +0700] tbudl wrote:
TF> On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:35:44 -0500 GMT (28/06/03, 22:35 +0700 GMT),
TF> Greg Strong wrote:
>> I want to keep running dialog of all email correspondence. I think
>> having incorporated into the interface would make it more user
>> frie
Hello kristina,
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:46:53 +0100 GMT (30/06/03, 20:46 +0700 GMT),
kristina wrote:
> I'm not sure if I'm understanding this correctly. But if I am then
> TB! already does this (doesn't it)!
No. ;-)
> I have one folder (well several actually) and all outgoing & incoming
> email
201 - 285 of 285 matches
Mail list logo
