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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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!


--
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!

"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