OT. new antispam laws in the US
"Jane Ransom" wrote in message ... In article , David david.simp writes But just about all the return addresses are false Jane, So how do you account for the fact that we now receive no spam on that mail box? You seem to be the only one for whom bouncing leads to reduced spam. I did not benefit from bouncing, and neither does any of my acquaintances. Franz |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
"Jane Ransom" wrote in message ... In article , David david.simp writes But just about all the return addresses are false Jane, So how do you account for the fact that we now receive no spam on that mail box? You seem to be the only one for whom bouncing leads to reduced spam. I did not benefit from bouncing, and neither does any of my acquaintances. Franz |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
In article , martin
writes So how do you account for the fact that we now receive no spam on that mail box? I don't know, unless something else has changed but it is a fact that the spammers don't send from valid addresses (unless they're using an unsuspecting host) they really *don't* see any replies (bounced or otherwise). The bit about they only use valid email addresses, well, they would say that anyway wouldn't they When the huge increase in junk started a while back I set up the rejection rules to bounce most of it but it's still coming, 138 rejected this morning with 7 getting through, I'm continually reviewing the rules to fine tune. One of the most popular addresses is which is an easy one to block, I reject anything from aol and yahoo plus a few smaller ones and unrecognised email names. I must admit there is a small amount of satisfaction is seeing stuff bounced, is that sad? Don't Demon offer a spam tagging service David? How does that work Martin? I've had a text chat with them and they didn't mention it, they suggested bouncing or deleting but were very sorry there was nothing they could do... -- David |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:22:03 +0000, David
wrote: In article , martin writes So how do you account for the fact that we now receive no spam on that mail box? I don't know, unless something else has changed but it is a fact that the spammers don't send from valid addresses (unless they're using an unsuspecting host) they really *don't* see any replies (bounced or otherwise). The bit about they only use valid email addresses, well, they would say that anyway wouldn't they When the huge increase in junk started a while back I set up the rejection rules to bounce most of it but it's still coming, 138 rejected this morning with 7 getting through, I'm continually reviewing the rules to fine tune. One of the most popular addresses is which is an easy one to block, I reject anything from aol and yahoo plus a few smaller ones and unrecognised email names. I must admit there is a small amount of satisfaction is seeing stuff bounced, is that sad? Don't Demon offer a spam tagging service David? How does that work Martin? I've had a text chat with them and they didn't mention it, they suggested bouncing or deleting but were very sorry there was nothing they could do... Some ISPs have software that identifies 99.999% of spam. The ISP inserts ***SPAM*** in front of the subject. On your PC you set up a filter to either store ***SPAM*** messages in a folder, until you are confident that they don't mark good messages as spam. Later if you like you can filter ***SPAM***messages to be deleted directly. At work all SPAM is removed before we see it, so we have no way of knowing if we sometimes lose messages. Some ISPs seem a bit reluctant to publicise this option. I pay a euro a month extra for it. Clara, Gradwell and BTopenworld are amongst the UK ISPs that offer Spam tagging. In NL Planet and Wanadoo both offer the service. Demon appears to believe that Spam tagging is not possible http://www.demon.net/helpdesk/spam/index.shtml "Why doesn't Demon filter my email messages for UCE? Filtering email, to discard the unwanted junk, often sounds like an attractive option and indeed some people find that systems installed on their own machines and tweaked for their own situation can work very well. However, there are very significant challenges in setting up a centralised system for a customer base as diverse as Demon's and providing assurances that no-one's legitimate email will be discarded by mistake. We are also mindful that filtering is essentially a stop-gap solution and that the "spammers" are already modifying their material to make it harder and harder to distinguish from legitimate email. To fight back, filters become more and more "fuzzy" and this increases the risk of blocking the email that our customers want to receive. Demon has investigated email blocking solutions and at present we do not believe that we could offer a general system that would be suitable for customers. However, this is not a final judgement, and we will continue to monitor what is available as systems are improved and updated." Perhaps it's time for Demon users to put pressure on Demon to do a real investigation. -- Martin |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
In article , martin
writes So how do you account for the fact that we now receive no spam on that mail box? I don't know, unless something else has changed but it is a fact that the spammers don't send from valid addresses (unless they're using an unsuspecting host) they really *don't* see any replies (bounced or otherwise). The bit about they only use valid email addresses, well, they would say that anyway wouldn't they When the huge increase in junk started a while back I set up the rejection rules to bounce most of it but it's still coming, 138 rejected this morning with 7 getting through, I'm continually reviewing the rules to fine tune. One of the most popular addresses is which is an easy one to block, I reject anything from aol and yahoo plus a few smaller ones and unrecognised email names. I must admit there is a small amount of satisfaction is seeing stuff bounced, is that sad? Don't Demon offer a spam tagging service David? How does that work Martin? I've had a text chat with them and they didn't mention it, they suggested bouncing or deleting but were very sorry there was nothing they could do... -- David |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:22:03 +0000, David
wrote: In article , martin writes So how do you account for the fact that we now receive no spam on that mail box? I don't know, unless something else has changed but it is a fact that the spammers don't send from valid addresses (unless they're using an unsuspecting host) they really *don't* see any replies (bounced or otherwise). The bit about they only use valid email addresses, well, they would say that anyway wouldn't they When the huge increase in junk started a while back I set up the rejection rules to bounce most of it but it's still coming, 138 rejected this morning with 7 getting through, I'm continually reviewing the rules to fine tune. One of the most popular addresses is which is an easy one to block, I reject anything from aol and yahoo plus a few smaller ones and unrecognised email names. I must admit there is a small amount of satisfaction is seeing stuff bounced, is that sad? Don't Demon offer a spam tagging service David? How does that work Martin? I've had a text chat with them and they didn't mention it, they suggested bouncing or deleting but were very sorry there was nothing they could do... Some ISPs have software that identifies 99.999% of spam. The ISP inserts ***SPAM*** in front of the subject. On your PC you set up a filter to either store ***SPAM*** messages in a folder, until you are confident that they don't mark good messages as spam. Later if you like you can filter ***SPAM***messages to be deleted directly. At work all SPAM is removed before we see it, so we have no way of knowing if we sometimes lose messages. Some ISPs seem a bit reluctant to publicise this option. I pay a euro a month extra for it. Clara, Gradwell and BTopenworld are amongst the UK ISPs that offer Spam tagging. In NL Planet and Wanadoo both offer the service. Demon appears to believe that Spam tagging is not possible http://www.demon.net/helpdesk/spam/index.shtml "Why doesn't Demon filter my email messages for UCE? Filtering email, to discard the unwanted junk, often sounds like an attractive option and indeed some people find that systems installed on their own machines and tweaked for their own situation can work very well. However, there are very significant challenges in setting up a centralised system for a customer base as diverse as Demon's and providing assurances that no-one's legitimate email will be discarded by mistake. We are also mindful that filtering is essentially a stop-gap solution and that the "spammers" are already modifying their material to make it harder and harder to distinguish from legitimate email. To fight back, filters become more and more "fuzzy" and this increases the risk of blocking the email that our customers want to receive. Demon has investigated email blocking solutions and at present we do not believe that we could offer a general system that would be suitable for customers. However, this is not a final judgement, and we will continue to monitor what is available as systems are improved and updated." Perhaps it's time for Demon users to put pressure on Demon to do a real investigation. -- Martin |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
In article , martin
writes So how do you account for the fact that we now receive no spam on that mail box? I don't know, unless something else has changed but it is a fact that the spammers don't send from valid addresses (unless they're using an unsuspecting host) they really *don't* see any replies (bounced or otherwise). The bit about they only use valid email addresses, well, they would say that anyway wouldn't they When the huge increase in junk started a while back I set up the rejection rules to bounce most of it but it's still coming, 138 rejected this morning with 7 getting through, I'm continually reviewing the rules to fine tune. One of the most popular addresses is which is an easy one to block, I reject anything from aol and yahoo plus a few smaller ones and unrecognised email names. I must admit there is a small amount of satisfaction is seeing stuff bounced, is that sad? Don't Demon offer a spam tagging service David? How does that work Martin? I've had a text chat with them and they didn't mention it, they suggested bouncing or deleting but were very sorry there was nothing they could do... -- David |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:22:03 +0000, David
wrote: In article , martin writes So how do you account for the fact that we now receive no spam on that mail box? I don't know, unless something else has changed but it is a fact that the spammers don't send from valid addresses (unless they're using an unsuspecting host) they really *don't* see any replies (bounced or otherwise). The bit about they only use valid email addresses, well, they would say that anyway wouldn't they When the huge increase in junk started a while back I set up the rejection rules to bounce most of it but it's still coming, 138 rejected this morning with 7 getting through, I'm continually reviewing the rules to fine tune. One of the most popular addresses is which is an easy one to block, I reject anything from aol and yahoo plus a few smaller ones and unrecognised email names. I must admit there is a small amount of satisfaction is seeing stuff bounced, is that sad? Don't Demon offer a spam tagging service David? How does that work Martin? I've had a text chat with them and they didn't mention it, they suggested bouncing or deleting but were very sorry there was nothing they could do... Some ISPs have software that identifies 99.999% of spam. The ISP inserts ***SPAM*** in front of the subject. On your PC you set up a filter to either store ***SPAM*** messages in a folder, until you are confident that they don't mark good messages as spam. Later if you like you can filter ***SPAM***messages to be deleted directly. At work all SPAM is removed before we see it, so we have no way of knowing if we sometimes lose messages. Some ISPs seem a bit reluctant to publicise this option. I pay a euro a month extra for it. Clara, Gradwell and BTopenworld are amongst the UK ISPs that offer Spam tagging. In NL Planet and Wanadoo both offer the service. Demon appears to believe that Spam tagging is not possible http://www.demon.net/helpdesk/spam/index.shtml "Why doesn't Demon filter my email messages for UCE? Filtering email, to discard the unwanted junk, often sounds like an attractive option and indeed some people find that systems installed on their own machines and tweaked for their own situation can work very well. However, there are very significant challenges in setting up a centralised system for a customer base as diverse as Demon's and providing assurances that no-one's legitimate email will be discarded by mistake. We are also mindful that filtering is essentially a stop-gap solution and that the "spammers" are already modifying their material to make it harder and harder to distinguish from legitimate email. To fight back, filters become more and more "fuzzy" and this increases the risk of blocking the email that our customers want to receive. Demon has investigated email blocking solutions and at present we do not believe that we could offer a general system that would be suitable for customers. However, this is not a final judgement, and we will continue to monitor what is available as systems are improved and updated." Perhaps it's time for Demon users to put pressure on Demon to do a real investigation. -- Martin |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
In article , martin
writes Some ISPs have software that identifies 99.999% of spam. The ISP inserts ***SPAM*** in front of the subject. On your PC you set up a filter to either store ***SPAM*** messages in a folder, until you are confident that they don't mark good messages as spam. Later if you like you can filter ***SPAM***messages to be deleted directly. At work all SPAM is removed before we see it, so we have no way of knowing if we sometimes lose messages. Some ISPs seem a bit reluctant to publicise this option. I pay a euro a month extra for it. There's free software available that will do the same - try a google search on Popfile. It sorts into spam, probably spam, and genuine, based on the content of the email and the frequency of various words, you can re-classify anything that it categorises wrongly, and it learns from that and constantly improves its performance. -- Kay Easton Edward's earthworm page: http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
In article , martin
writes Some ISPs have software that identifies 99.999% of spam. The ISP inserts ***SPAM*** in front of the subject. On your PC you set up a filter to either store ***SPAM*** messages in a folder, until you are confident that they don't mark good messages as spam. Later if you like you can filter ***SPAM***messages to be deleted directly. At work all SPAM is removed before we see it, so we have no way of knowing if we sometimes lose messages. Some ISPs seem a bit reluctant to publicise this option. I pay a euro a month extra for it. There's free software available that will do the same - try a google search on Popfile. It sorts into spam, probably spam, and genuine, based on the content of the email and the frequency of various words, you can re-classify anything that it categorises wrongly, and it learns from that and constantly improves its performance. -- Kay Easton Edward's earthworm page: http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:09:45 +0000, Kay Easton
wrote: In article , martin writes Some ISPs have software that identifies 99.999% of spam. The ISP inserts ***SPAM*** in front of the subject. On your PC you set up a filter to either store ***SPAM*** messages in a folder, until you are confident that they don't mark good messages as spam. Later if you like you can filter ***SPAM***messages to be deleted directly. At work all SPAM is removed before we see it, so we have no way of knowing if we sometimes lose messages. Some ISPs seem a bit reluctant to publicise this option. I pay a euro a month extra for it. There's free software available that will do the same - try a google search on Popfile. It sorts into spam, probably spam, and genuine, based on the content of the email and the frequency of various words, you can re-classify anything that it categorises wrongly, and it learns from that and constantly improves its performance. I find it easier to let my ISP do the job. -- Martin |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:09:45 +0000, Kay Easton
wrote: In article , martin writes Some ISPs have software that identifies 99.999% of spam. The ISP inserts ***SPAM*** in front of the subject. On your PC you set up a filter to either store ***SPAM*** messages in a folder, until you are confident that they don't mark good messages as spam. Later if you like you can filter ***SPAM***messages to be deleted directly. At work all SPAM is removed before we see it, so we have no way of knowing if we sometimes lose messages. Some ISPs seem a bit reluctant to publicise this option. I pay a euro a month extra for it. There's free software available that will do the same - try a google search on Popfile. It sorts into spam, probably spam, and genuine, based on the content of the email and the frequency of various words, you can re-classify anything that it categorises wrongly, and it learns from that and constantly improves its performance. I find it easier to let my ISP do the job. -- Martin |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
In article , martin
writes On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:09:45 +0000, Kay Easton wrote: In article , martin writes There's free software available that will do the same - try a google search on Popfile. It sorts into spam, probably spam, and genuine, based on the content of the email and the frequency of various words, you can re-classify anything that it categorises wrongly, and it learns from that and constantly improves its performance. I find it easier to let my ISP do the job. But you said not all ISPs do. I was suggesting something that might be of use to those with ISPs that don't offer the service, in the naive belief that other people apart from you might be reading this thread. -- Kay Easton Edward's earthworm page: http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:23:01 +0000, Kay Easton
wrote: In article , martin writes On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:09:45 +0000, Kay Easton wrote: In article , martin writes There's free software available that will do the same - try a google search on Popfile. It sorts into spam, probably spam, and genuine, based on the content of the email and the frequency of various words, you can re-classify anything that it categorises wrongly, and it learns from that and constantly improves its performance. I find it easier to let my ISP do the job. But you said not all ISPs do. I was suggesting something that might be of use to those with ISPs that don't offer the service, in the naive belief that other people apart from you might be reading this thread. Yes Kay I understood what you meant. One can also filter spam using Mozilla or Agent. -- Martin |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
"David" wrote in message ... In article , martin writes So how do you account for the fact that we now receive no spam on that mail box? I don't know, unless something else has changed but it is a fact that the spammers don't send from valid addresses (unless they're using an unsuspecting host) they really *don't* see any replies (bounced or otherwise). The bit about they only use valid email addresses, well, they would say that anyway wouldn't they When the huge increase in junk started a while back I set up the rejection rules to bounce most of it but it's still coming, 138 rejected this morning with 7 getting through, I'm continually reviewing the rules to fine tune. One of the most popular addresses is which is an easy one to block, I reject anything from aol and yahoo plus a few smaller ones and unrecognised email names. I must admit there is a small amount of satisfaction is seeing stuff bounced, is that sad? Don't Demon offer a spam tagging service David? How does that work Martin? I've had a text chat with them and they didn't mention it, they suggested bouncing or deleting but were very sorry there was nothing they could do... Drop Demon. Join Btopenworld. They offer a very effective anti-spam ans anti-virus service, They tag the spam and delete the virus-laden mail without your ever knowing about the latter. Both services get rid of about 99% of the spam and viruses. Franz |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
In article , martin
writes On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:23:01 +0000, Kay Easton wrote: In article , martin writes On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:09:45 +0000, Kay Easton wrote: In article , martin writes There's free software available that will do the same - try a google search on Popfile. It sorts into spam, probably spam, and genuine, based on the content of the email and the frequency of various words, you can re-classify anything that it categorises wrongly, and it learns from that and constantly improves its performance. One can also filter spam using Mozilla or Agent. How do these do the filtering? Do they rely on you setting up rules, like 'filter out all emails with *** in the subject'? Popfile does it by an analysis of the word frequencies, which means it isn't thrown by the addition of a '!' or similar to disguise the offending subject heading, and it therefore recognises new variants of spam for what they are. -- Kay Easton Edward's earthworm page: http://www.scarboro.demon.co.uk/edward/index.htm |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
In article , Franz Heymann
writes Don't Demon offer a spam tagging service David? How does that work Martin? I've had a text chat with them and they didn't mention it, they suggested bouncing or deleting but were very sorry there was nothing they could do... Drop Demon. Join Btopenworld. They offer a very effective anti-spam ans anti-virus service, They tag the spam and delete the virus-laden mail without your ever knowing about the latter. Both services get rid of about 99% of the spam and viruses. But I like Demon Franz, apart from the spam issue I have found them to be a good reliable ISP -- David |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:41:34 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote: "Jane Ransom" wrote in message ... In article , David david.simp writes But just about all the return addresses are false Jane, So how do you account for the fact that we now receive no spam on that mail box? You seem to be the only one for whom bouncing leads to reduced spam. I did not benefit from bouncing, and neither does any of my acquaintances. Franz I gave up bouncing a while ago. It didn't seem to reduce the spam and it just contributes to the junk flying around the internet. -- Chris E-mail: christopher[dot]hogg[at]virgin[dot]net |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
"jane" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:05:57 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote: ~On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:41:34 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" wrote: ~ ~ ~"Jane Ransom" wrote in message ... ~ In article , David david.simp ~ writes ~ ~ But just about all the return addresses are false Jane, ~ ~ So how do you account for the fact that we now receive no spam on that ~ mail box? ~ ~You seem to be the only one for whom bouncing leads to reduced spam. I did ~not benefit from bouncing, and neither does any of my acquaintances. ~ ~Franz ~ ~I gave up bouncing a while ago. It didn't seem to reduce the spam and ~it just contributes to the junk flying around the internet. ~ ~ Well after a few days of using Mailwasher I've finally got all my friends and contacts programmed in. Now I've set up a spreadsheet in which I shall record, over 2 weeks, the number of spams received, number correctly identified, and number missed (ie true and false positives). Ditto good mail. I am actively bouncing spam and blacklisting the apparent senders. If it's a resounding success, I shall consider letting it delete automatically and buying the real version. We shall see! Please await progress report in 2 weeks! I look forward to the statistics. I am willing to place bets on the following: (1) Mailwasher is approximately 95 % effective in identifying spam (2) Nearly half your attempted bounces will be rejected because many spammers use false addresses. (3) The majority of the successful bounces will continue to try to send spam. Franz |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:23:58 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote: "jane" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:05:57 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote: ~On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:41:34 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" wrote: ~ ~ ~"Jane Ransom" wrote in message ... ~ In article , David david.simp ~ writes ~ ~ But just about all the return addresses are false Jane, ~ ~ So how do you account for the fact that we now receive no spam on that ~ mail box? ~ ~You seem to be the only one for whom bouncing leads to reduced spam. I did ~not benefit from bouncing, and neither does any of my acquaintances. ~ ~Franz ~ ~I gave up bouncing a while ago. It didn't seem to reduce the spam and ~it just contributes to the junk flying around the internet. ~ ~ Well after a few days of using Mailwasher I've finally got all my friends and contacts programmed in. Now I've set up a spreadsheet in which I shall record, over 2 weeks, the number of spams received, number correctly identified, and number missed (ie true and false positives). Ditto good mail. I am actively bouncing spam and blacklisting the apparent senders. If it's a resounding success, I shall consider letting it delete automatically and buying the real version. We shall see! Please await progress report in 2 weeks! I look forward to the statistics. I am willing to place bets on the following: (1) Mailwasher is approximately 95 % effective in identifying spam (2) Nearly half your attempted bounces will be rejected because many spammers use false addresses. (3) The majority of the successful bounces will continue to try to send spam. (4) some innocent victim of her bounces will formally complain to her ISP about her spamming, eventually. In the meantime I have had two genuine messages tagged as spam by my ISP, one understandably, the other not and I am starting to get one or two spam messages untagged per day. -- Martin |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:23:58 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote: ~ ~"jane" wrote in message ... ~ On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:05:57 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote: ~ ~ ~On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:41:34 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" ~ wrote: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"Jane Ransom" wrote in message ~ ... ~ ~ In article , David ~david.simp ~ ~ writes ~ ~ ~ ~ But just about all the return addresses are false Jane, ~ ~ ~ ~ So how do you account for the fact that we now receive no spam on that ~ ~ mail box? ~ ~ ~ ~You seem to be the only one for whom bouncing leads to reduced spam. I ~did ~ ~not benefit from bouncing, and neither does any of my acquaintances. ~ ~ ~ ~Franz ~ ~ ~ ~I gave up bouncing a while ago. It didn't seem to reduce the spam and ~ ~it just contributes to the junk flying around the internet. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Well after a few days of using Mailwasher I've finally got all my ~ friends and contacts programmed in. Now I've set up a spreadsheet in ~ which I shall record, over 2 weeks, the number of spams received, ~ number correctly identified, and number missed (ie true and false ~ positives). Ditto good mail. I am actively bouncing spam and ~ blacklisting the apparent senders. ~ ~ If it's a resounding success, I shall consider letting it delete ~ automatically and buying the real version. We shall see! ~ ~ Please await progress report in 2 weeks! ~ ~I look forward to the statistics. ~ ~I am willing to place bets on the following: ~(1) Mailwasher is approximately 95 % effective in identifying spam ~(2) Nearly half your attempted bounces will be rejected because many ~spammers use false addresses. ~(3) The majority of the successful bounces will continue to try to send ~spam. ~ I'll only be able to give you stats on (1) though - without taking a very careful look, I won't be able to identify who spams me twice. There is a way (looking at the last email date in the blacklist.txt) but I'm not sure if I'll do it. Might do, though I suspect 2 weeks is too short a period for that particular question. I'm more interested in (4) do my received-at-server spam numbers drop at all. I only got 77 overnight and it's usually over a hundred, more at weekends, so it may already be working. We shall see. -- jane Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone, you may still exist but you have ceased to live. Mark Twain Please remove onmaps from replies, thanks! |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 10:19:24 +0000 (UTC),
(jane) wrote: On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:23:58 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" wrote: ~ ~"jane" wrote in message ... ~ On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:05:57 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote: ~ ~ ~On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:41:34 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" ~ wrote: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"Jane Ransom" wrote in message ~ ... ~ ~ In article , David ~david.simp ~ ~ writes ~ ~ ~ ~ But just about all the return addresses are false Jane, ~ ~ ~ ~ So how do you account for the fact that we now receive no spam on that ~ ~ mail box? ~ ~ ~ ~You seem to be the only one for whom bouncing leads to reduced spam. I ~did ~ ~not benefit from bouncing, and neither does any of my acquaintances. ~ ~ ~ ~Franz ~ ~ ~ ~I gave up bouncing a while ago. It didn't seem to reduce the spam and ~ ~it just contributes to the junk flying around the internet. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Well after a few days of using Mailwasher I've finally got all my ~ friends and contacts programmed in. Now I've set up a spreadsheet in ~ which I shall record, over 2 weeks, the number of spams received, ~ number correctly identified, and number missed (ie true and false ~ positives). Ditto good mail. I am actively bouncing spam and ~ blacklisting the apparent senders. ~ ~ If it's a resounding success, I shall consider letting it delete ~ automatically and buying the real version. We shall see! ~ ~ Please await progress report in 2 weeks! ~ ~I look forward to the statistics. ~ ~I am willing to place bets on the following: ~(1) Mailwasher is approximately 95 % effective in identifying spam ~(2) Nearly half your attempted bounces will be rejected because many ~spammers use false addresses. ~(3) The majority of the successful bounces will continue to try to send ~spam. ~ I'll only be able to give you stats on (1) though - without taking a very careful look, I won't be able to identify who spams me twice. There is a way (looking at the last email date in the blacklist.txt) but I'm not sure if I'll do it. Might do, though I suspect 2 weeks is too short a period for that particular question. I'm more interested in (4) do my received-at-server spam numbers drop at all. I only got 77 overnight and it's usually over a hundred, more at weekends, so it may already be working. We shall see. If my experience is average, you'll find the amount of spam varies day by day. If you look at the time the spam was sent, you'll also find it comes in bursts from supposedly several different sources. -- Martin |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
"martin" wrote in message ... : On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:23:58 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" : wrote: : : I look forward to the statistics. : : I am willing to place bets on the following: : (1) Mailwasher is approximately 95 % effective in identifying spam : (2) Nearly half your attempted bounces will be rejected because many : spammers use false addresses. : (3) The majority of the successful bounces will continue to try to send : spam. : : (4) some innocent victim of her bounces will formally complain to her : ISP about her spamming, eventually. : : In the meantime I have had two genuine messages tagged as spam by my : ISP, one understandably, the other not and I am starting to get one or : two spam messages untagged per day. : -- : Martin I gave up Mailwasher and other freebies for the same reasons. It tried to treat as spam my DH's daily bulletin from his running club - he would not have been a happy bunny. I find it just as quick and easy to delete the spam without opening them. The majority I (and presumably anyone) can tell are spam and the others I just have a quick look without opening via 'Properties' etc. Perhaps I don't get as many as others, but this method takes seconds. K |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
"jane" wrote in message ... On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:23:58 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" wrote: ~ ~"jane" wrote in message ... ~ On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:05:57 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote: ~ ~ ~On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:41:34 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" ~ wrote: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"Jane Ransom" wrote in message ~ ... ~ ~ In article , David ~david.simp ~ ~ writes ~ ~ ~ ~ But just about all the return addresses are false Jane, ~ ~ ~ ~ So how do you account for the fact that we now receive no spam on that ~ ~ mail box? ~ ~ ~ ~You seem to be the only one for whom bouncing leads to reduced spam. I ~did ~ ~not benefit from bouncing, and neither does any of my acquaintances. ~ ~ ~ ~Franz ~ ~ ~ ~I gave up bouncing a while ago. It didn't seem to reduce the spam and ~ ~it just contributes to the junk flying around the internet. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Well after a few days of using Mailwasher I've finally got all my ~ friends and contacts programmed in. Now I've set up a spreadsheet in ~ which I shall record, over 2 weeks, the number of spams received, ~ number correctly identified, and number missed (ie true and false ~ positives). Ditto good mail. I am actively bouncing spam and ~ blacklisting the apparent senders. ~ ~ If it's a resounding success, I shall consider letting it delete ~ automatically and buying the real version. We shall see! ~ ~ Please await progress report in 2 weeks! ~ ~I look forward to the statistics. ~ ~I am willing to place bets on the following: ~(1) Mailwasher is approximately 95 % effective in identifying spam ~(2) Nearly half your attempted bounces will be rejected because many ~spammers use false addresses. ~(3) The majority of the successful bounces will continue to try to send ~spam. ~ I'll only be able to give you stats on (1) though - without taking a very careful look, I won't be able to identify who spams me twice. Yes, that one is a bind. I stopped looking in detail as soon as I noticed 3 bouncees coming back for more. There is a way (looking at the last email date in the blacklist.txt) but I'm not sure if I'll do it. Might do, though I suspect 2 weeks is too short a period for that particular question. I'm more interested in (4) do my received-at-server spam numbers drop at all. I only got 77 overnight and it's usually over a hundred, more at weekends, so it may already be working. We shall see. I look forward to the results. At present, I am hugely satisfied with the anti-spam service offered by my ISP. He automatically tags possible spam and moves them into a separate box. The stuff I see in my real mailbox is now only a minute percentage of the total spam directed at me. In the early days I studied the tagged and segregated junk to see if the ISP had misdirected any genuine mail. In more than 2000 taggees, I have found not one erroneously tagged item. I now have so much confidence in the system that I don't bother studying the junkbox any more, I just do a bulk delete once or twice a week. Franz |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
Xref: kermit uk.rec.gardening:177500
The message from "K" contains these words: I gave up Mailwasher and other freebies for the same reasons. It tried to treat as spam my DH's daily bulletin from his running club - he would not have been a happy bunny. I find it just as quick and easy to delete the spam without opening them. The majority I (and presumably anyone) can tell are spam and the others I just have a quick look without opening via 'Properties' etc. Perhaps I don't get as many as others, but this method takes seconds. I just check my log to see if anything which has fallen in loks as if it may be genuine, then i can go to it in the saved packet and give it the once-over. If it is genuine, I tell the KF to make an exception to the sender, or I modify the filter and pass the saved packet through again for unpacking. -- Rusty Hinge http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm Dark thoughts about the Wumpus concerto played with piano, iron bar and two sledge hammers. (Wumpus, 15/11/03) |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
The message
from "K" contains these words: ~ ~ I gave up Mailwasher and other freebies for the same reasons. It tried to ~ treat as spam my DH's daily bulletin from his running club - he would not ~ have been a happy bunny. I find it just as quick and easy to delete the ~ spam without opening them. The majority I (and presumably anyone) can tell ~ are spam and the others I just have a quick look without opening via ~ 'Properties' etc. ~ Perhaps I don't get as many as others, but this method takes seconds. I was finding upwards of 250 a day. I filtered them within Agent, but couldn't get filter *all* of the nasties, and since some of the subject lines turn my stomach, I was getting to the point where I just had to do something. Yes I delete without opening, knowing nothing will be automatically run or decoded, but it still means you have to read the offensive filth which is fit only for my compost heap in the subject lines. Hence my original question and now my experiment. The thing I like about Mailwasher is that you can feed in trusted addresses: your running club mail should take one click to register as friendly and then it would always get through. It filters the friends first, which is why I didn't really start counting till today, after I'd checked all my friends were registered. I am much obliged to Martin for pointing me in its direction. obGardening: pulled a pound of late carrots today! -- jane Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone, you may still exist but you have ceased to live. Mark Twain Please remove onmaps from replies, thanks! |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
The message
from "K" contains these words: ~ ~ I gave up Mailwasher and other freebies for the same reasons. It tried to ~ treat as spam my DH's daily bulletin from his running club - he would not ~ have been a happy bunny. I find it just as quick and easy to delete the ~ spam without opening them. The majority I (and presumably anyone) can tell ~ are spam and the others I just have a quick look without opening via ~ 'Properties' etc. ~ Perhaps I don't get as many as others, but this method takes seconds. I was finding upwards of 250 a day. I filtered them within Agent, but couldn't get filter *all* of the nasties, and since some of the subject lines turn my stomach, I was getting to the point where I just had to do something. Yes I delete without opening, knowing nothing will be automatically run or decoded, but it still means you have to read the offensive filth which is fit only for my compost heap in the subject lines. Hence my original question and now my experiment. The thing I like about Mailwasher is that you can feed in trusted addresses: your running club mail should take one click to register as friendly and then it would always get through. It filters the friends first, which is why I didn't really start counting till today, after I'd checked all my friends were registered. I am much obliged to Martin for pointing me in its direction. obGardening: pulled a pound of late carrots today! -- jane Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone, you may still exist but you have ceased to live. Mark Twain Please remove onmaps from replies, thanks! |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
"jane" wrote in message The thing I like about Mailwasher is that you can feed in trusted addresses: your running club mail should take one click to register as friendly and then it would always get through. It filters the friends first, which is why I didn't really start counting till today, after I'd checked all my friends were registered. I love it. I paid for one of the early versions and have been upgrated to Mailwasher Pro. I am very happy with it and it has taken my spam stuff very low. Good luck with yours obGardening: pulled a pound of late carrots today! Wow.. you must be very far south.. I am really jealous:) Ophelia Scotland |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
|
OT. new antispam laws in the US
In article , martin
writes (4) some innocent victim of her bounces will formally complain to her ISP about her spamming, eventually. How will they distinguish between a bounce and an invalid address used initially by the spammer? I contacted demon recently because of what people were saying on this thread - their advice was . . . . continue bouncing. -- Jane Ransom in Lancaster. I won't respond to private emails that are on topic for urg but if you need to email me for any other reason, put ransoms at jandg dot demon dot co dot uk where you see |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:43:35 +0000, Jane Ransom
wrote: In article , martin writes (4) some innocent victim of her bounces will formally complain to her ISP about her spamming, eventually. How will they distinguish between a bounce and an invalid address used initially by the spammer? They will see the spam coming from you, not the original sender. If they also use bouncing, you will get it straight back. I contacted demon recently because of what people were saying on this thread - their advice was . . . . continue bouncing. but then again Demon thinks that spam can't be identified and tagged. All that bouncing does is waste bandwidth and server resources. Somebody in Demon deserves the sack. -- Martin |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
In article , martin
writes They will see the spam coming from you, not the original sender. If they also use bouncing, you will get it straight back. But it will arrive with a message saying that the address was invalid. Have you never had an envelope rejection reply? It looks nothing like a valid post; it could not be mistaken for a normal spam type post. If you want to see what it looks like, try sending an email to abc at jandg spot demon dot co circle uk. -- Jane Ransom in Lancaster. I won't respond to private emails that are on topic for urg but if you need to email me for any other reason, put ransoms at jandg dot demon dot co dot uk where you see |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
I recently got some spam where the forged return address was myself so it
kept getting bounced round until I spotted it. I found it quite amusing at the time... -- Martin & Anna Sykes ( Remove x's when replying ) http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sykesm "Jane Ransom" wrote in message ... In article , martin writes They will see the spam coming from you, not the original sender. If they also use bouncing, you will get it straight back. But it will arrive with a message saying that the address was invalid. Have you never had an envelope rejection reply? It looks nothing like a valid post; it could not be mistaken for a normal spam type post. If you want to see what it looks like, try sending an email to abc at jandg spot demon dot co circle uk. -- Jane Ransom in Lancaster. I won't respond to private emails that are on topic for urg but if you need to email me for any other reason, put ransoms at jandg dot demon dot co dot uk where you see |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
In article , Jane Ransom
writes In article , martin writes (4) some innocent victim of her bounces will formally complain to her ISP about her spamming, eventually. How will they distinguish between a bounce and an invalid address used initially by the spammer? I contacted demon recently because of what people were saying on this thread - their advice was . . . . continue bouncing. I had a similar conversation with Demon but when I pointed out that if the return address was invalid it would just be bounced back, their response was "well just delete them then", I challenged them on what they were doing to reduce/eliminate spam and it appears the answer is absolutely nothing (unless its coming from a demon account) -- David |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
Following up to Bob Hobden
Any control must be better than now, we get about 100 spam's per day. Do not disclose your email on usenet[1]. Encrypt your email on webpages.[2] Then start with a new email with a reputable ISP and you should only get a few. 1] If you want the code I can post it. 2] Use a dustbin email address here, this stops mail bouncing back to maliciously forged innocent addresses and haves the junk flying about. Some news services like Uni. Berlin insist on a valid address for this reason. -- Mike Reid "Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso Walking-food-photos, Wasdale, Thames, London etc "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site and same for Spain at "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 08:56:44 -0000, "Martin Sykes"
wrote: I recently got some spam where the forged return address was myself so it kept getting bounced round until I spotted it. I found it quite amusing at the time... LOL I have had the same, but I don't bounce mail. -- Martin |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:14:05 +0000, Reid
wrote: Some news services like Uni. Berlin insist on a valid address for this reason. They will also accept which has a valid format, but is certainly not my e-mail address. -- Martin |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
In message , martin
writes On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:43:35 +0000, Jane Ransom wrote: In article , martin writes (4) some innocent victim of her bounces will formally complain to her ISP about her spamming, eventually. How will they distinguish between a bounce and an invalid address used initially by the spammer? They will see the spam coming from you, not the original sender. Depends on how the bouncing is done. Anything I bounce goes back to the address in the return path complete with all the spammers forged headers. It is then up to the unfortunate on the receiving end to decode them and complain about the forgery to the spammers ISP or more likely the dumb sysop with the open mail relay (or his ISP). If they also use bouncing, you will get it straight back. Bounces of bounces are prevented by having a null return path to avoid endless loops. I contacted demon recently because of what people were saying on this thread - their advice was . . . . continue bouncing. but then again Demon thinks that spam can't be identified and tagged. All that bouncing does is waste bandwidth and server resources. Somebody in Demon deserves the sack. Bouncing tells the sender (or whoever appears in the return-path) that their mail could not be delivered. Blocked by local policy or no such user. Opinion in Demon and amongst Demon users is divided on the usefulness of bouncing. It isn't ideal, but then neither is simulating a black hole. Bouncing Swen for instance seems much preferable to accepting it and at least alerts the owner of the infected PC to their problem. Regards, -- Martin Brown |
OT. new antispam laws in the US
Following up to martin
Some news services like Uni. Berlin insist on a valid address for this reason. They will also accept which has a valid format, but is certainly not my e-mail address. the reason I didn't use that is killfiles often work on email address, you could get dumped along with some troll. -- Mike Reid "Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso Walking-food-photos, Wasdale, Thames, London etc "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site and same for Spain at "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter