[I] My email address has lost its innocence

Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog

[Suche] [Administrator] [Hinweise zum Reader] [Startseite]

Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » [I] My email address has lost its innocence

[I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #272796]

So, 21 Mai 2006 12:52

Flesh-eating Dragon

Yep, as I briefly mentioned elsewhere, my _private_ email address,
which I don't publicise, has been picked up by a spammer.

It's not the first time that address has ever had any spam *at all*,
but it's the first time it's had a stream of them. There've been seven
in the last three days, approximately.

What I resent, what I really, really resent, is the loss of being able
to get all excited whenever I see my computer downloading a message
from my private address, knowing it to be a personal message.

So far all the spams that have come through have contained an
attachment that mentions the windows 1252 character set, and been more
than 20KB in size, so I've instructed my computer to leave such
messages on the server (I can always check messages on the server
directly once in a while via an imap connection). However, I don't
believe such homogenuity will last.

I hate spammers. The best cure is that all my friends should email me
lots of nice messages, thus drowning out the spammy noise in the sheer
volume of friendly signal.

Adrian.

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #272802 ]

So, 21 Mai 2006 13:14

alec

In article <e4pgpf$2t6i$1 [at] mud.stack.nl>, dragon [at] netyp.com.au says...
> Yep, as I briefly mentioned elsewhere, my _private_ email address,
> which I don't publicise, has been picked up by a spammer.
>
> It's not the first time that address has ever had any spam *at all*,
> but it's the first time it's had a stream of them. There've been seven
> in the last three days, approximately.
>
> What I resent, what I really, really resent, is the loss of being able
> to get all excited whenever I see my computer downloading a message
> from my private address, knowing it to be a personal message.

Have you got a spam filter? I strongly reccomment Popfile, but there are
others. If, as you describe, the spam has a very recognisable
"signature", Popfile will have no problem in hiding it from you for
ever.

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #272805 ]

So, 21 Mai 2006 13:42

Flesh-eating Dragon

Alec Cawley wrote:
> dragon [at] netyp.com.au says...

>> What I resent, what I really, really resent, is the loss of being able
>> to get all excited whenever I see my computer downloading a message
>> from my private address, knowing it to be a personal message.
>
> Have you got a spam filter? I strongly reccomment Popfile, but there are
> others. If, as you describe, the spam has a very recognisable
> "signature", Popfile will have no problem in hiding it from you for
> ever.

I already use Popfile, and it has correctly labelled all of the spam
in question, but Popfile can only filter spam *after* it has already
been downloaded from the server. As such it's useful, but doesn't fix
the problem I refer to above.

Right now I'm using Outlook Express's own filters to keep the spam on
the server, but that's a band-aid solution that will only work as long
as the recognisable signature holds up.

I guess it's an example of nothing lasting forever.

Adrian.

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #272820 ]

So, 21 Mai 2006 14:05

Kar98

On 2006-05-21 07:12:37 -0500, "8'FED" <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> said:

> Right now I'm using Outlook Express's own filters to keep the spam on
> the server, but that's a band-aid solution that will only work as long
> as the recognisable signature holds up.

Have you tried Outlook (not Express) 2003 with the current service
pack? The e-mail client actually has one of the best available spam
filters.

--
My computer is so fast it can execute an infinite loop in 3 seconds.

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #272850 ]

So, 21 Mai 2006 16:40

Arthur Hagen

René <Kar98 [at] The-Coalition.US> wrote:
> On 2006-05-21 07:12:37 -0500, "8'FED" <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> said:
>
>> Right now I'm using Outlook Express's own filters to keep the spam on
>> the server, but that's a band-aid solution that will only work as
>> long as the recognisable signature holds up.
>
>
> Have you tried Outlook (not Express) 2003 with the current service
> pack? The e-mail client actually has one of the best available spam
> filters.

As long as it doesn't plug in to the mail server, it isn't "one of the
best". The good ones refuse most spam before it's even transmitted.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #272857 ]

So, 21 Mai 2006 17:06

Kar98

On 2006-05-21 09:40:05 -0500, "Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com> said:

> As long as it doesn't plug in to the mail server, it isn't "one of the best".

Why would I allow a user to dick around on my server? On the other
hand, if I'm a user, I don't appreciate the admin deciding "junk or
not" for me.

> The good ones refuse most spam before it's even transmitted.

Well? You can tell Outlook to consider everything encoded in other than
English or German to be junk and delete it off the server instead of
downloading it, for instance. What else do you want?

--
My computer is so fast it can execute an infinite loop in 3 seconds.

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #272864 ]

So, 21 Mai 2006 17:51

"8'FED" <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote in message
news:e4pgpf$2t6i$1 [at] mud.stack.nl...
> Yep, as I briefly mentioned elsewhere, my _private_ email address,
> which I don't publicise, has been picked up by a spammer.
>
> It's not the first time that address has ever had any spam *at all*,
> but it's the first time it's had a stream of them. There've been seven
> in the last three days, approximately.
>
> What I resent, what I really, really resent, is the loss of being able
> to get all excited whenever I see my computer downloading a message
> from my private address, knowing it to be a personal message.

Have you looked at Mailwasher ? It keeps the mail on your server and
downloads the header and first few lines of text information (probably less
than 1K per message).
You can then preview the message safely (since it only downloads text you're
not exposed to any nasties) and delete the ones you want straight from the
server.

There is a free version that checks one POP email address, or you can pay
$37 for the Pro version which supports Hotmail, MSN , AOL and IMAP
..
Home Page
http://www.mailwasher.net/index.php
FAQ
http://www.mailwasher.net/faq.php

I've no connection with Mailwasher apart from being a very satisfied user (I
love the idea of freeware, so I have to be _very_ impressed to consider
paying for it!).

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #272897 ]

So, 21 Mai 2006 18:42

Arthur Hagen

René <Kar98 [at] The-Coalition.US> wrote:
> On 2006-05-21 09:40:05 -0500, "Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com>
> said:
>> As long as it doesn't plug in to the mail server, it isn't "one of
>> the best".
>
> Why would I allow a user to dick around on my server? On the other
> hand, if I'm a user, I don't appreciate the admin deciding "junk or
> not" for me.

If you allow the user to fetch and erase email on the server, you're already
allowing him to dick around. Allowing his mail client to maintain
personalised spam rules on the server isn't going to hurt any more. In
fact, it may save you some storage space and bandwidth.

>> The good ones refuse most spam before it's even transmitted.
>
> Well? You can tell Outlook to consider everything encoded in other
> than English or German to be junk and delete it off the server
> instead of downloading it, for instance. What else do you want?

Outlook has to download the headers to be able to ascertain that.
What else I want? The mail server to not accept the mail at all if certain
criteria are met, like the connecting IP address is on a blacklist, or there
being more than N recipients out of which you are one, or automatic
forwarding of email almost certainly not spam to a different account, or
automated reporting to clearinghouses, or...

All in all, I find Outlook 2003's anti-spam to be rather underwhelming, and
in my not so humble opinion, it's clearly below par, not "one of the best".
Compared to, say, Outlook Express or Thunderbird, it may be good. Compared
to vomit, even shit smells good.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #272901 ]

So, 21 Mai 2006 19:00

Kar98

On 2006-05-21 11:42:46 -0500, "Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com> said:

> If you allow the user to fetch and erase email on the server, you're
> already allowing him to dick around.

If I don't want that, I could always _not_ allow the user to erase
e-mail off the server.

> Outlook has to download the headers to be able to ascertain that.
> What else I want? The mail server to not accept the mail at all if
> certain criteria are met, like the connecting IP address is on a
> blacklist, or there being more than N recipients out of which you are
> one, or automatic forwarding of email almost certainly not spam to a
> different account, or automated reporting to clearinghouses, or...

*shrugs*
Now you're talking about mail _servers_, whereas I was talking about
mail _clients_, without third-party add-ons.

> All in all, I find Outlook 2003's anti-spam to be rather underwhelming,
> and in my not so humble opinion, it's clearly below par, not "one of
> the best". Compared to, say, Outlook Express or Thunderbird, it may be
> good.

Fine, name a better one, then.

--
My computer is so fast it can execute an infinite loop in 3 seconds.

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #272928 ]

So, 21 Mai 2006 21:07

Steve Rogers

"OG" <owen [at] gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:4dbgjhF19l9c7U1 [at] individual.net...
>
> "8'FED" <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote in message
> news:e4pgpf$2t6i$1 [at] mud.stack.nl...
>> Yep, as I briefly mentioned elsewhere, my _private_ email address,
>> which I don't publicise, has been picked up by a spammer.
>>
>> It's not the first time that address has ever had any spam *at all*,
>> but it's the first time it's had a stream of them. There've been
>> seven
>> in the last three days, approximately.
>>
>> What I resent, what I really, really resent, is the loss of being
>> able
>> to get all excited whenever I see my computer downloading a message
>> from my private address, knowing it to be a personal message.
>
> Have you looked at Mailwasher ? It keeps the mail on your server and
> downloads the header and first few lines of text information (probably
> less than 1K per message).
> You can then preview the message safely (since it only downloads text
> you're not exposed to any nasties) and delete the ones you want
> straight from the server.
>
> There is a free version that checks one POP email address, or you can
> pay $37 for the Pro version which supports Hotmail, MSN , AOL and IMAP
> .
> Home Page
> http://www.mailwasher.net/index.php
> FAQ
> http://www.mailwasher.net/faq.php
>
> I've no connection with Mailwasher apart from being a very satisfied
> user (I love the idea of freeware, so I have to be _very_ impressed to
> consider paying for it!).
>

Works for me too, although writing custom filters at times can be a
pain - currently doing one to filter my wife's email that she gets in
the US but I scan and delete the rubbish here in the UK for her first
lol.

Steve

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #272933 ]

So, 21 Mai 2006 21:20

"Steve Rogers" <steve [at] soapietrekkers.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e4qdfe$9p4$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "OG" <owen [at] gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:4dbgjhF19l9c7U1 [at] individual.net...
>> Have you looked at Mailwasher ?
>
> Works for me too, although writing custom filters at times can be a pain -
> currently doing one to filter my wife's email that she gets in the US but
> I scan and delete the rubbish here in the UK for her first lol.
>
> Steve

I didn't even know there were filters! I just sort by Status so that
Friends are at the top, Blacklisted are at the bottom (pre-marked for
deletion) and I only need to check the few in the middle that could go
either way. It also means I can decide whether I'm bothered with notes from
Amazon, Tesco or whatever.
I only delete on 'Process Mail', so I'm in control.

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #272966 ]

So, 21 Mai 2006 23:08

bbottorff

> Yep, as I briefly mentioned elsewhere, my _private_ email address,
> which I don't publicise, has been picked up by a spammer.

Does anything on the windows side of the world have anything like the
bundled mac mail program's "Bounce to Sender" command? That seems to
have worked for the few spams I got; I haven't seen anything else since
I did that.

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #272968 ]

So, 21 Mai 2006 23:13

Steve Rogers

"OG" <owen [at] gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
news:4dbsr4F19nmgoU1 [at] individual.net...
>
> "Steve Rogers" <steve [at] soapietrekkers.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:e4qdfe$9p4$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> "OG" <owen [at] gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:4dbgjhF19l9c7U1 [at] individual.net...
>>> Have you looked at Mailwasher ?
>>
>> Works for me too, although writing custom filters at times can be a
>> pain - currently doing one to filter my wife's email that she gets in
>> the US but I scan and delete the rubbish here in the UK for her first
>> lol.
>>
>> Steve
>
> I didn't even know there were filters! I just sort by Status so that
> Friends are at the top, Blacklisted are at the bottom (pre-marked for
> deletion) and I only need to check the few in the middle that could go
> either way. It also means I can decide whether I'm bothered with
> notes from Amazon, Tesco or whatever.
> I only delete on 'Process Mail', so I'm in control.
Oh yeah you can set filters up of your own junking, for example at
present to stop my wife being unsubbed from a Yahoo group she belongs to
for going 'no mail', I delete it from the server before she has a chance
to see it, the same for one of the groups I subscribe to. The worse
comes for filters to hide things from my view, such as her other groups
or my own emails to her - currently the one I'm working on which is
proving a right royal pain at the moment - as sometimes they get let
through, more so when the connection to the server drops, but then as
she gets upwards 300-400 a day (Incredimail group so a lot of artwork
passing through), letting through 6 or 7 isn't to bad.

There is also a file of filters available that were written by the
original author of Mailwasher which you just cut and paste into the
appropriate file and alter/enable/disable as you need.

Steve

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #272977 ]

So, 21 Mai 2006 23:35

Kar98

On 2006-05-21 16:13:44 -0500, "Steve Rogers"
<steve [at] soapietrekkers.demon.co.uk> said:

> Oh yeah you can set filters up of your own junking, for example at
> present to stop my wife being unsubbed from a Yahoo group she belongs
> to for going 'no mail', I delete it from the server before she has a
> chance to see it, the same for one of the groups I subscribe to.

Unable to parse that.

> The worse comes for filters to hide things from my view, such as her
> other groups or my own emails to her -

Erm, set up separate user accounts for you and her? I mean in (checks
headers) Windows, not your e-mail program, but there too.

--
My computer is so fast it can execute an infinite loop in 3 seconds.

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #272992 ]

So, 21 Mai 2006 23:46

"Boyd Bottorff" <bbottorff [at] nomail.com> wrote in message
news:1hfp62u.ubco6wzbkjx0N%bbottorff [at] nomail.com...
>> Yep, as I briefly mentioned elsewhere, my _private_ email address,
>> which I don't publicise, has been picked up by a spammer.
>
> Does anything on the windows side of the world have anything like the
> bundled mac mail program's "Bounce to Sender" command? That seems to
> have worked for the few spams I got; I haven't seen anything else since
> I did that.

Well, Mailwasher will do that, but I'm not sure that spammers would remove
you from their lists on the strength of a bounce message so I don't see the
point and have set my options so it doesn't.

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #273023 ]

Mo, 22 Mai 2006 01:59

Arthur Hagen

OG <owen [at] gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
> "Boyd Bottorff" <bbottorff [at] nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:1hfp62u.ubco6wzbkjx0N%bbottorff [at] nomail.com...
>>> Yep, as I briefly mentioned elsewhere, my _private_ email address,
>>> which I don't publicise, has been picked up by a spammer.
>>
>> Does anything on the windows side of the world have anything like the
>> bundled mac mail program's "Bounce to Sender" command? That seems to
>> have worked for the few spams I got; I haven't seen anything else
>> since I did that.
>
> Well, Mailwasher will do that, but I'm not sure that spammers would
> remove you from their lists on the strength of a bounce message so I
> don't see the point and have set my options so it doesn't.

Almost all spam these days have faked sender addresses, so what you do is
bounce the email to someone who has /nothing/ whatsoever to do with the
spam, and help fill up his or her email box. Sometimes this person is even
on a pay-per-byte link, and downloading 1500 bounces addressed to you costs
money. The first time *your* email address is used for a Joe job, you'll
discover how fun this is.

PLEASE stop bouncing spam -- it won't do any good, but will often do harm.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #273030 ]

Mo, 22 Mai 2006 02:35

naomi

8'FED wrote:

>
> I hate spammers. The best cure is that all my friends should email me
> lots of nice messages, thus drowning out the spammy noise in the sheer
> volume of friendly signal.
>
> Adrian.
>
>
I have *an* email address of yours, not sure if it is *the* email
address under discussion. I did reply to your email the other day
though. I was a bit gloomy at the time, but I'm feeling a lot better so
if you want to risk emailing me *the* address I promise not to spam you. Ok?

n

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #273044 ]

Mo, 22 Mai 2006 05:48

Flesh-eating Dragon

naomi wrote:

> I have *an* email address of yours, not sure if it is *the* email address
> under discussion. I did reply to your email the other day though. I was a bit
> gloomy at the time, but I'm feeling a lot better so if you want to risk
> emailing me *the* address I promise not to spam you. Ok?

I got your reply and that's the address - I haven't got around to
getting back to you. :-)

Adrian.

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #273108 ]

Mo, 22 Mai 2006 11:56

Steve Rogers

"René" <Kar98 [at] The-Coalition.US> wrote in message
news:2006052116350195335-Kar98 [at] TheCoalitionUS...
> On 2006-05-21 16:13:44 -0500, "Steve Rogers"
> <steve [at] soapietrekkers.demon.co.uk> said:
>
>> Oh yeah you can set filters up of your own junking, for example at
>> present to stop my wife being unsubbed from a Yahoo group she belongs
>> to for going 'no mail', I delete it from the server before she has a
>> chance to see it, the same for one of the groups I subscribe to.
>
> Unable to parse that.

Deleting the un-needed emails is the easy bit with just a look at
specifics for each group in the subject line (normally they have a group
identifier similar to the meta tags used here) which only fails if the
connection to the server drops or erors in some way.
>
>> The worse comes for filters to hide things from my view, such as her
>> other groups or my own emails to her -
>
> Erm, set up separate user accounts for you and her? I mean in (checks
> headers) Windows, not your e-mail program, but there too.
>
>

Well I think that is taken care of by her being on a PC in the US and me
on one in the UK lol, it's just writing the RegExp correctly to pick out
the group identifiers in the headers/subject line and setting them to be
hidden from view, so far I've not quite managed that, but almost :-)

Steve

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #273137 ]

Mo, 22 Mai 2006 13:54

Gideon Hallett

8'FED wrote:

> So far all the spams that have come through have contained an
> attachment that mentions the windows 1252 character set, and been
> more than 20KB in size, so I've instructed my computer to leave
> such messages on the server (I can always check messages on the
> server directly once in a while via an imap connection). However,
> I don't believe such homogenuity will last.

My procmailrc contains:

:0
* ^*:.*Windows-1252
/dev/null

Yes, I might well lose a genuine Russian email. Since my grasp of
the Cyrillic alphabet is rudimentary at best, this is not a great
loss, all things considered.

cheers,

Gideon.

--
(((( | ====diogenes [at] freeuk.com.=========================|
o__))))) | - Bringing permed '70s-retro hedgehogs to the =|
__ \'((((( | common people since he got bored one afternoon. =|

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #273138 ]

Mo, 22 Mai 2006 13:58

Gideon Hallett

Arthur Hagen wrote:

> OG <owen [at] gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>> "Boyd Bottorff" <bbottorff [at] nomail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1hfp62u.ubco6wzbkjx0N%bbottorff [at] nomail.com...

<snip>
> Almost all spam these days have faked sender addresses, so what
> you do is bounce the email to someone who has /nothing/ whatsoever
> to do with the spam.

<snip>

> PLEASE stop bouncing spam -- it won't do any good, but will often
> do harm.

It can also get *your* account nuked for spamming; since you are
causing an innocent third party to receive mail they didn't ask
for.

Ugly as greylisting is, it's a somewhat effective solution; and as
for the rest, a well-trained spam-filter and a silent-discard mail
server are the best ways to minimize the junk.

(Aside, of course, from multilateral nuclear strikes on places like
Florida and Russia and China.)

cheers,

Gideon.

--
(((( | ====diogenes [at] freeuk.com.=========================|
o__))))) | - Bringing permed '70s-retro hedgehogs to the =|
__ \'((((( | common people since he got bored one afternoon. =|

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #273154 ]

Mo, 22 Mai 2006 15:23

Flesh-eating Dragon

Gideon Hallett wrote:
> Arthur Hagen wrote:

>> PLEASE stop bouncing spam -- it won't do any good, but will often
>> do harm.
>
> It can also get *your* account nuked for spamming; since you are
> causing an innocent third party to receive mail they didn't ask
> for.

This is why I have a bit of a prejudice against mailwasher: in my
eyes, anti-spam software whose defaults get this wrong reflects badly
upon its authors and has a credibility issue.

BTW, there has been no new spam to my private address in the last day,
which is good.

Adrian.

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #273228 ]

Mo, 22 Mai 2006 20:17

alec

In article <e4qush$jeq$1 [at] tree.broomstick.com>, art [at] broomstick.com
says...
> OG <owen [at] gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
> > "Boyd Bottorff" <bbottorff [at] nomail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1hfp62u.ubco6wzbkjx0N%bbottorff [at] nomail.com...
> >>> Yep, as I briefly mentioned elsewhere, my _private_ email address,
> >>> which I don't publicise, has been picked up by a spammer.
> >>
> >> Does anything on the windows side of the world have anything like the
> >> bundled mac mail program's "Bounce to Sender" command? That seems to
> >> have worked for the few spams I got; I haven't seen anything else
> >> since I did that.
> >
> > Well, Mailwasher will do that, but I'm not sure that spammers would
> > remove you from their lists on the strength of a bounce message so I
> > don't see the point and have set my options so it doesn't.
>
> Almost all spam these days have faked sender addresses, so what you do is
> bounce the email to someone who has /nothing/ whatsoever to do with the
> spam, and help fill up his or her email box. Sometimes this person is even
> on a pay-per-byte link, and downloading 1500 bounces addressed to you costs
> money. The first time *your* email address is used for a Joe job, you'll
> discover how fun this is.
>
> PLEASE stop bouncing spam -- it won't do any good, but will often do harm.

My brother had to abandon his personalised domain name because of 20,000
bounces clogging it up with a dial-up connection. I got about 15,000
over about 3 days once, but my broadband plus Popfile made the
experience livable through.

Some spammers treat even a bounce as proof that there is at least a live
address there, and "all" they have to do is find a better way through
your filters. So by bouncing you are either hurting an innocent party
(of the return is faked) or yourself (if the spammer takes a return as
evidence of existence).

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #273545 ]

Di, 23 Mai 2006 16:52

Flesh-eating Dragon

I wrote:

> Right now I'm using Outlook Express's own filters to keep the spam on
> the server, but that's a band-aid solution that will only work as long
> as the recognisable signature holds up.

Well, I *THOUGHT* I was.

But it turns out the filter I set up doesn't work. Bloody OE ignores
it.

This is going to require some thought, and a careful consideration of
options.

There appears to be a bug in (my version of) Outlook Express, that
filters which "delete from server" or "do not download from server"
do not work. Filters which delete messages or move them into folders
work just fine - and I *know* that "delete from server" worked just
fine with older versions of OE. Does anyone know about such a bug, and
how to fix it?

Alternatively, maybe I _should_ try mailwasher. I have little faith
in a spam filtering product whose authors are so clueless as to make
bouncing the default, but I'm not aware of any other product that
specialises in the same job (filtering mail on the server). This would
mean using POPfile for one email account (which I already do) and
Mailwasher for the other. I can't help feeling pessimistic, though,
that for some reason or other it won't work satisfactorily. If this
turns out to be the best available way to go, I *will* appreciate
assistance.

Adrian.

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #273619 ]

Di, 23 Mai 2006 22:58

"8'FED" <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote in message
news:e4v7i5$la9$1 [at] mud.stack.nl...
>I wrote:
>
>
> Alternatively, maybe I _should_ try mailwasher. I have little faith
> in a spam filtering product whose authors are so clueless as to make
> bouncing the default,

No harm in giving it a go. Don't expect it to do miracles - some spam won't
get recognised and some non-spam will get marked incorrectly - but if you
find it is better than nowt, then use it.

Owen

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #273708 ]

Mi, 24 Mai 2006 06:37

Flesh-eating Dragon

OG wrote:
> 8'FED wrote:

>> Alternatively, maybe I _should_ try mailwasher. I have little faith
>> in a spam filtering product whose authors are so clueless as to make
>> bouncing the default,
>
> No harm in giving it a go.

First question:

How do you make a filter rule that refers to the SIZE of a message
(i.e. one that says, if it's more than 20KB, and <other conditions>
then <action>).

Unless I'm missing something, you can't. And if that's so, it fails
at the first hurdle.

> Don't expect it to do miracles - some spam won't get recognised and some
> non-spam will get marked incorrectly

Note that it would be /me/, not the /software/, that decides what the
filters are.

Adrian.

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #273777 ]

Mi, 24 Mai 2006 15:45

Steve Rogers

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #273781 ]

Mi, 24 Mai 2006 16:23

Flesh-eating Dragon

Steve Rogers wrote:

> Look for what you are wanting to filter out in either the header or body is my
> guess with Mailwasher

I don't see what that reply has to do with my question.

Adrian.

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #273831 ]

Mi, 24 Mai 2006 21:08

"8'FED" <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote in message
news:e50nvb$262c$2 [at] mud.stack.nl...
> OG wrote:
>> 8'FED wrote:
>
>>> Alternatively, maybe I _should_ try mailwasher. I have little faith
>>> in a spam filtering product whose authors are so clueless as to make
>>> bouncing the default,
>>
>> No harm in giving it a go.
>
> First question:
>
> How do you make a filter rule that refers to the SIZE of a message
> (i.e. one that says, if it's more than 20KB, and <other conditions>
> then <action>).
>
> Unless I'm missing something, you can't. And if that's so, it fails
> at the first hurdle.
>

I'm not sure what you want it to do.

I never use filters. I just let Mailwasher fetch the header details from my
POP servers and display the details on the screen. See
http://www.astd60.dsl.pipex.com/mwasher.htm for what I had when I got home
this afternoon.

As you can see, I've already got some email addresses marked as 'Friend',
and Mailwasher has identified some as "Possible Spam".
Remember, at this point you have only downloaded the header and a little bit
of of text data from your mail server. If you are on a dial-up this is where
I score Mailwasher highly because you don't need to download the 47.5KB from
Amazon if you don't want to. You can see the size of any mail (which
indicates attachments) so having a filter for files > 20KB may not be what
you need, since you can see how large the message will be anyway.

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #273966 ]

Do, 25 Mai 2006 15:10

Steve Rogers

"8'FED" <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote in message
news:e51q7q$18tu$1 [at] mud.stack.nl...
> Steve Rogers wrote:
>
>> Look for what you are wanting to filter out in either the header or
>> body is my guess with Mailwasher
>
> I don't see what that reply has to do with my question.
>
> Adrian.
>
>

As any attachments are encoded it is possible then to trap for them, in
fact there is a set of filters available on the forums that does exactly
that for Base64 stuff by filtering the header and body for
"Content-Transfer-Encoding: Base64" so to amplify my answer your
question yes it is possible to trap for emails with attachments or
imbedded items although as regards the size of the attachment I couldn't
say as I don't filter for them myself, but it should be possible to
write a filter to exclude most of what you want to.

Steve

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #273973 ]

Do, 25 Mai 2006 16:35

Steve Rogers

"Steve Rogers" <steve [at] soapietrekkers.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e54acp$gm4$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "8'FED" <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote in message
> news:e51q7q$18tu$1 [at] mud.stack.nl...
>> Steve Rogers wrote:
>>
>>> Look for what you are wanting to filter out in either the header or
>>> body is my guess with Mailwasher
>>
>> I don't see what that reply has to do with my question.
>>
>> Adrian.
>>
>>
>
> As any attachments are encoded it is possible then to trap for them,
> in fact there is a set of filters available on the forums that does
> exactly that for Base64 stuff by filtering the header and body for
> "Content-Transfer-Encoding: Base64" so to amplify my answer your
> question yes it is possible to trap for emails with attachments or
> imbedded items although as regards the size of the attachment I
> couldn't say as I don't filter for them myself, but it should be
> possible to write a filter to exclude most of what you want to.
>
Replying to myself here after doing some very quick and dirty checks -
you'd need a set of prioritised filters to start with I believe.
Mailwasher itself will screen out what it considers to be viral
attachments such as exe's and let you then decide on their final
disposition and as has been said in another post you don't have to
download more than the headers to see for yourself the attachment size
and make a decision accordingly if writing filters is not for you.

Personally I keep playing with the idea of writing my own filtering
software as I've not yet come across any one yet that allows me to do
exactly what I want in that regard (constraints on the construction of
the filters tends to limit me a little), but Mailwasher does most of
what I need.

Now if you want to talk about poor filtering in an email client then
look no further than Incredimail which my wife uses, it's abysmal in my
opinion and I thought OE was poor but......

Steve

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #274761 ]

So, 28 Mai 2006 03:44

Flesh-eating Dragon

I wrote:

> There appears to be a bug in (my version of) Outlook Express, that
> filters which "delete from server" or "do not download from server"
> do not work. Filters which delete messages or move them into folders
> work just fine - and I *know* that "delete from server" worked just
> fine with older versions of OE. Does anyone know about such a bug, and
> how to fix it?

Can anyone recommend any places where I might be able to find out more
about available mail filters? Be it other mailwasher-like products or
patches for the adequate-if-it-actually-worked OE filter?

I have looked on Microsoft's website for some kind of patch to solve
the aforementioned bug, to no avail, but it's possible I wasn't
looking in the right place.

Adrian.

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #274776 ]

So, 28 Mai 2006 10:40

Steve Rogers

"8'FED" <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote in message
news:e5av7s$16gd$1 [at] mud.stack.nl...
>I wrote:
>
>> There appears to be a bug in (my version of) Outlook Express, that
>> filters which "delete from server" or "do not download from server"
>> do not work. Filters which delete messages or move them into folders
>> work just fine - and I *know* that "delete from server" worked just
>> fine with older versions of OE. Does anyone know about such a bug,
>> and
>> how to fix it?
>
> Can anyone recommend any places where I might be able to find out more
> about available mail filters? Be it other mailwasher-like products or
> patches for the adequate-if-it-actually-worked OE filter?
>
> I have looked on Microsoft's website for some kind of patch to solve
> the aforementioned bug, to no avail, but it's possible I wasn't
> looking in the right place.
>

You might try looking at the fix pages as there seems no problem with my
OE here doing just that, it's how I've got it set here as one of the
accounts I check and filter for my wife is the POP3 which also carries
my emails and the last thing I want to do is download her messages in
the UK whilst she's in the US.

Take a look at http://insideoe.tomsterdam.com which has some good hints
and tips etc

Steve

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #274780 ]

So, 28 Mai 2006 12:49

Flesh-eating Dragon

Steve Rogers wrote:

> Take a look at http://insideoe.tomsterdam.com which has some good hints and
> tips etc

Yes. From there I can get to http://www.insideoe.com/tips/rules.htm
which says:

Also care must be taken not to create a 'delete' rule based on
conditions that require the message be downloaded in order to
test against the rule. Those conditions are "where the message
body contains text", "where the message has an attachment" and
"where the message is secure". The same restriction applies if you
use the action "do not download".

That'll be the problem. Bugger.

Adrian.

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #274793 ]

So, 28 Mai 2006 14:46

Steve Rogers

"8'FED" <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote in message
news:e5bv5p$1sd3$1 [at] mud.stack.nl...
> Steve Rogers wrote:
>
>> Take a look at http://insideoe.tomsterdam.com which has some good
>> hints and tips etc
>
> Yes. From there I can get to http://www.insideoe.com/tips/rules.htm
> which says:
>
> Also care must be taken not to create a 'delete' rule based on
> conditions that require the message be downloaded in order to
> test against the rule. Those conditions are "where the message
> body contains text", "where the message has an attachment" and
> "where the message is secure". The same restriction applies if you
> use the action "do not download".
>
> That'll be the problem. Bugger.
>

It is a bit, plus the filters don't work on Hotmail accounts at all, but
at least you can see what is there without downloading the body of the
email. There are email clients and notifiers out there that allow you
to view the headers without downloading the entire message, I think one
of them was mentioned on that site I gave, so there is a method of at
least screening out what you don't want whilst then putting up with how
OE implements it's filters to leave on server. Again Spam filters that
work in the same manner as Mailwasher allow you to set that way of
working up, which is something that I do for the accounts that my wife
uses - identify her stuff and classify it in Mailwasher, get rid of any
obvious junk and confirm with her what she doesn't want, and in OE have
a leave on server filter set up for her email addy so that I don't
accidentally remove it from the server before she has a chance to see
it.

So either a mail client change or some other means of interrogating your
server and managing your emails prior to downloading them.

Apparently Mailwasher is due to have the option to screen specifically
for the size of messages, hopefully it will be in the near future. It
is one of those items that are on the wish list however that keep
getting pushed back as other more important issues are dealt with in the
upgrades, but it is a serious possibility before long - or so said a
member of the development team on their forums not long ago.

Steve

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #275289 ]

Do, 01 Juni 2006 02:31

Elder1

On Sun, 28 May 2006 08:46:24 -0400, Steve Rogers wrote:

> "8'FED" <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote in message
> news:e5bv5p$1sd3$1 [at] mud.stack.nl...
>> Steve Rogers wrote:
>>
[...]
>
> So either a mail client change or some other means of interrogating your
> server and managing your emails prior to downloading them.
>
[...]

> Steve

have you looked at http://www.memecode.com/scribe.php iScribe? the free
version (iScribe) only allows one account, but the full/unfree version
supports multiple accounts. It's small, fast and pretty easy to use - I
haven't used the filters, but it does allow previewing on the server. It
may not be what you're looking for, but you never know

hth

c:\>

--
gnome/sig team still in Carpathia...

Re: My email address has lost its innocence [message #276055 ]

Fr, 02 Juni 2006 02:31

richardg1042

MailWasher has been pretty good for me at the office.

My wife put Spam Bully on the home one and thats good too. The bounce
feature does nicely.

OG wrote:
> "8'FED" <dragon [at] netyp.com.au> wrote in message
> news:e4v7i5$la9$1 [at] mud.stack.nl...
> >I wrote:
> >
> >
> > Alternatively, maybe I _should_ try mailwasher. I have little faith
> > in a spam filtering product whose authors are so clueless as to make
> > bouncing the default,
>
> No harm in giving it a go. Don't expect it to do miracles - some spam won't
> get recognised and some non-spam will get marked incorrectly - but if you
> find it is better than nowt, then use it.
>
> Owen

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #276073 ]

Fr, 02 Juni 2006 03:33

Notifier Deamon

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: [I] My email address has lost its innocence [message #280665 ]

Do, 08 Juni 2006 12:45

Flesh-eating Dragon

Elder1 wrote:

> have you looked at http://www.memecode.com/scribe.php iScribe? the free
> version (iScribe) only allows one account, but the full/unfree version
> supports multiple accounts. It's small, fast and pretty easy to use - I
> haven't used the filters, but it does allow previewing on the server. It
> may not be what you're looking for, but you never know

In the short term, no, that's not useful.

But it might be worth my making a note of for the long term, just in
case I ever decide to switch mail clients. Which is to say, I can't
see anything obviously wrong with it. However, that's not going to
happen unless I also change news clients, and I'm yet to discover
any that I prefer over OE.

Adrian.

Vorheriges Thema:	[I] Firefly/Serenity movie
Nächstes Thema:	[R] Merchandise Suggestions..?

Gehe zu:

-=] Zurück zum Anfang [=-

aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 08:32:46 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,09688 Sekunden

.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.