Hello John De Hoog,
On Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:36:35 +0900 GMT your local time,
which was Wednesday, February 16, 2000, 7:36:35 AM (GMT+0700) my local time,
John De Hoog wrote:
> Hello, Batmen and women,
> tracer wrote...
>>John, but its a total waste of time trying to hit this kind of address
>>one by one. But if as I mentioned before and just in another message
>>one could filter on the fact that sender=receiver, one needs exactly
>>one kill filter
> Both of those are overstatements. If you look at SPAM mail headers,
> you find all sorts of patterns. Some are actually addressed properly
> to you. Others have a different To: and From: address, neither of them
> legitimate.
> I've seen only a small number with identical
> sender-receiver addresses.
Because I got already rid of the rest.
I had a spam box of 500 starting mails and got it down to about 30.
And THEN I had 2 major groups left, sender= receiver and the oddball
sequenced numbers/letter email addresses.
real addressed one obviously are a problem...
Donot start by looking at the addresses used.
I had them all in one folder, like 500 plus and sorted them to see
what was common and those
[recipient list not shown: ;]
and
[Undisclosed.Recipients]
are in a major part of spam messages.
It takes care of many of the other 'odd ball' addressee modes.
I then zapped all the ones with no @ in sender or receiver which
reduced it even more abd I checked before setting up the delete what
was hit, and I only had one with a problem so filtered that one out
before it gets to the spam filters.
If preselection of mail you Do want is properly done there should be
very little legal mail which slips through...
> I've also noticed that a large amount of SPAM mail emanates from
> certain domains, usually free mail services, and oftent has the To:
> address set to a free mail domain or a bogus domain.
Only thing I can see there is to allow pop servers to dump bogus
senders... And there are ways to do that.
Its what I want on my pop server anyway and one I played with for a
while I setup to virtually do the killing for me, whole domains where
banned..
> The problem with The Bat! in this regard is that there is apparently
> no clear way to filter on the To: address. If you could put a list of
> common free mail domains to be rejected if they appear in the To:
> header, that would go a long way. The Bat! kill filter interface has
> something called *routing* which I thought would serve this purpose,
> but my experiments show it does not. So my question is, What is this
> *routing* filter supposed to look for?
No idea but your lists of spamming domains will never be long
enough...
I mean a thing like this [EMAIL PROTECTED]
should have been killed way before it ever hit a receipient....
Best regards,
tracer
--
Using theBAT 1.41 Beta/3 with Windows 98
mail to : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am using FireTalk: 321338
ICQ: on request
Website: www.phuketcomputers.com
Our special website hosting/mailservers are now operational
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
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
