-=PCTechTalk=- Re: what is this and why am I receiving it?
- From: "Wyatt M. Portendt" <nunyabidness6@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: pctechtalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:42:30 -0500
Hey, whatever works for you! MailWasher's only "training" took about 20
minutes of my time the first time I set it up. If you set it up right, you
can indeed use the headers to catch it. You can filter the body as well if
you like. It's highly configurable. Basic keyword filtering alone doesn't
work, not without a LOT of effort and constant adding. I haven't used
Bayesian filtering because I haven't needed it. I don't doubt you that it
works and maybe even works well.
Point is, just because something didn't work for *you* doesn't mean that it
doesn't work. I also think you got MailWasher mixed up with WebWasher, which
*is* a proxy service and worked okay when I used it way back when. I had one
of the first versions of MailWasher, and a few subsequent versions and it
wasn't (and isn't still as far as I know) a proxy service.
The truth is that you can set up filters in any email client. The trouble
with that is twofold. They aren't all *regular expressions* filters, so they
can be spoofed a thousand different ways. Second, you have to actually
download the crap first. With MW, it stays *on the server* until I've
screened it and it never goes to a trash folder or anywhere else on my hard
drive. It's been automatic since about the second day I used it (had to
tweak it to get it right) and its bouncing mechanism, despite the debate,
apparently is good enough to stop spam on three separate email accounts here
(one throwaway I purposely exposed and two real) and for a friend or two that
I helped set it up for.
It works with any email program for any pop mail server. You like yours
better and that's fine. Let's just not knock something that's also effective
just because you didn't like it or had no luck with it for whatever reason.
On Tuesday 30 September 2003 06:42, you wrote:
> Really? Than that has changed, because when I set it up you had to
> point your email client to it, if I remember correctly. Making it a
> proxy server, as mail went through it before your client.
>
> And let's really think about it. If you have to set filters in
> Mailwasher really what is the point? You can do the same thing in most
> Email clients, some better than others I will readily admit. I would
> rather put in 1 to 2 days of training for filtering, than
> having to setup rules for every new spam that comes out. K-9 took about
> 2 days to training for a 97% effective rate. SpamBayes, plugged into
> Outlook, showed it good saved mail, and a folder of spam (because I knew
> I would need it). Trained it in under 5 minutes. SpamBayes is so good,
> that it will even classify mail from the same sender as spam and
> non-spam based on its learning. So those forwarded jokes, etc, go
> directly to the spam folder (the deleted Items folder).
>
> If you want to talk "true" power, the power lies with Bayesian
> filtering. It doesn't have to look at addresses or header information,
> it looks at the contents. Something that hardly ever changes when it
> comes to spam, unlike header information. Header information can be
> forged, contents are pretty straightforward.
>
> Wrong classifications with SpamBayes, 1 in over 300 detected spam. I
> deal with anywhere between 200-500 emails a day. And that was easily
> dealt with, just reclassified it as good with a touch of a button,
> directly in Outlook.
>
> Now that's power.
>
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pctechtalk-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:pctechtalk-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Wyatt M. Portendt
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 1:12 AM
> To: pctechtalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: -=PCTechTalk=- Re: what is this and why am I receiving it?
>
>
> MailWasher is *not* a proxy service. SpamAlert is. Your email is not
> sent to
> another site to be verified. It simply intercept the headers (and
> optionally
> the messages) at *your own server*. The addresses can be
> cross-referenced to
> blacklists, but the true power is in using regular expressions filtering
> to
> weed out what you want to bounce. It works. I've proven it with three
> separate mail addresses.
>
> Without MailWasher I had about 15-35 percent spam rate in my inbox. Now
> I get
> about one every two months - maybe. Since I handle about 75 to 100
> emails a
> day, that's pretty darned good.
>
> On Monday 29 September 2003 09:38, you wrote:
> > That's the first that I've ever heard someone getting 100%. Most of
> > the time I've heard anywhere from 93 to 96%. The other thing I didn't
> >
> > like about MailWasher is the fact that it is a proxy service. I would
> >
> > rather have a solution such as SpamBayes that directly plugs into my
> > Outlook.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pctechtalk-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:pctechtalk-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Barnstoneworth
> > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 10:24 AM
> > To: pctechtalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: -=PCTechTalk=- Re: what is this and why am I receiving it?
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David Weaver" <djweaver@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <pctechtalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 1:50 PM
> > Subject: -=PCTechTalk=- Re: what is this and why am I receiving it?
> >
> > > Nope not familiar with it. I'm using SpamBayes right now. I've
> > > used Mailwasher in the past, was okay, but wasn't thoroughly
> > > impressed, and
> > >
> > > I've used K-9. K-9 did all right once trained about a 93-94%
> > > accuracy
> > >
> > > rate (something I never achieved with MailWasher. SpamBayes is at
> > > something like 98% accuracy. I'm pretty happy.
> >
> > That's odd regarding Mailwasher, I get 100% of all spam blocked, and I
> >
> > noticed within about 1 month that the actual amount I was getting had
> > dropped dramatically.
> >
> > To get round the problem that James's spam solution causes I've just
> > set up a mail rule to block anything from his address-the only problem
> >
> > with that is if he ever sent me a 'proper' email, I wouldn't get it
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsub or change your email settings:
> > //www.freelists.org/webpage/pctechtalk
> >
> > To access our Archives:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PCTechTalk/messages/
> > //www.freelists.org/archives/pctechtalk/
> >
> > For more info:
> > //www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/list?list_id=pctechtalk
> >
> > To unsub or change your email settings:
> > //www.freelists.org/webpage/pctechtalk
> >
> > To access our Archives:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PCTechTalk/messages/
> > //www.freelists.org/archives/pctechtalk/
> >
> > For more info:
> > //www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/list?list_id=pctechtalk
>
> To unsub or change your email settings:
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/pctechtalk
>
> To access our Archives:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PCTechTalk/messages/
> //www.freelists.org/archives/pctechtalk/
>
> For more info: //www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/list?list_id=pctechtalk
>
> To unsub or change your email settings:
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/pctechtalk
>
> To access our Archives:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PCTechTalk/messages/
> //www.freelists.org/archives/pctechtalk/
>
> For more info:
> //www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/list?list_id=pctechtalk
To unsub or change your email settings:
//www.freelists.org/webpage/pctechtalk
To access our Archives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PCTechTalk/messages/
//www.freelists.org/archives/pctechtalk/
For more info:
//www.freelists.org/cgi-bin/list?list_id=pctechtalk
Other related posts:
