-=PCTechTalk=- Re: what is this and why am I receiving it?
- From: "David Weaver" <djweaver@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pctechtalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 11:11:56 -0400
No I went back and checked. I got it confused with another program but
not Webwasher, which is a totally different animal. I did get it
confused with another spam filtering program.
The main problem I had with MailWasher, is that half the program doesn't
work. It does no good to bounce the emails back to the source, as most
spam emails are forged anyway. And it also doesn't work with all
servers. While I realize that there is no guarantee that it can work
with all servers, when it doesn't work with some of the bigger ISPs,
that represents a real problem (this is why I (as you put it) knock the
program). I setup the training properly when I used MailWasher (not
keywords) and wasn't impressed with the results. Those are the two
reason I didn't buy it.
I honestly believe that because of ever-changing technology, and the
fact that a lot of the changes are driven from the under-belly of the
Internet, we will always be playing a game of catch-up to the spammers.
It's just a matter of picking the right tools, whatever they maybe.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: pctechtalk-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:pctechtalk-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Wyatt M. Portendt
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 11:43 PM
To: pctechtalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: -=PCTechTalk=- Re: what is this and why am I receiving it?
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
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:
