| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#61
30-11-2003, 10:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
#63
30-11-2003, 10:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#64
30-11-2003, 11:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#65
30-11-2003, 12:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#66
30-11-2003, 02:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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) |
|
#67
30-11-2003, 06:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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! |
|
#68
30-11-2003, 06:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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! |
|
#69
30-11-2003, 06:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#71
30-11-2003, 08:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#72
30-11-2003, 08:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#73
30-11-2003, 09:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#74
01-12-2003, 09:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#75
01-12-2003, 09:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Even chickens get a better life under new animal laws | United Kingdom | |||
| LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER | Ponds | |||
| LAWS ABOUT DIVERTING WATER | Ponds | |||
| Monsanto Uses Canadian Taxpayer Money to Violate Foreign Laws Case highlights need for strong Biosaf | Gardening | |||
| Messy laws | Gardening | |||
Linear Mode
