«

Hi,

Spam level has finally reached a point where I guess I will have to at least
try to do something.

Am considering Mailwasher, and also the anti-spam filtering offered by my
broadband provider, Comcast.

Using both is probably a bad idea, I would imagine.

Which do you think I should go with, at least for an initial try of ?

Thanks,
Bob

Robert11 wrote:
> Spam level has finally reached a point where I guess I will have to
> at least try to do something.
>
> Am considering Mailwasher, and also the anti-spam filtering offered
> by my broadband provider, Comcast.

A client side spamfilter can generally be configured more tightly than a
provider's filter. Having your own filter also makes it easier to watch
out for and prevent false positives.

> Using both is probably a bad idea, I would imagine.

Using both doesn't solve the problem of the provider false positives.
The reason some providers have such leaky filters is their effort to
prevent those false positives.

> Which do you think I should go with, at least for an initial try of ?

Here's a comparison of MW free and paid with SpamPal and a number of
other client side filters. http://spampal.de/comparison-chart.html
Features chart for SpamPal and some of its major competitors

The two mailwashers are 8th & 9th from the left or 2nd & 3rd from the
right end of the chart.

--
Mike Easter

"Mike Easter" <> wrote in message
news:43c27723$0$14843$ reenews.net...
> Robert11 wrote:
>> Spam level has finally reached a point where I guess I will have to
>> at least try to do something.
>>
>> Am considering Mailwasher, and also the anti-spam filtering offered
>> by my broadband provider, Comcast.
>
> A client side spamfilter can generally be configured more tightly than
> a
> provider's filter. Having your own filter also makes it easier to
> watch
> out for and prevent false positives.
>
>> Using both is probably a bad idea, I would imagine.
>
> Using both doesn't solve the problem of the provider false positives.
> The reason some providers have such leaky filters is their effort to
> prevent those false positives.
>
>> Which do you think I should go with, at least for an initial try of ?
>
> Here's a comparison of MW free and paid with SpamPal and a number of
> other client side filters. http://spampal.de/comparison-chart.html
> Features chart for SpamPal and some of its major competitors
>
> The two mailwashers are 8th & 9th from the left or 2nd & 3rd from the
> right end of the chart.
>
> --
> Mike Easter
>

As mike said--the one provided by your isp you have minimal control
over--you can add--but if it decides to class the document as spam--you
dont even get to see it.
I like mailwasher,until such a time that you are confident with the
settings and set it to auto,you read the mail on the server,you will
still see the ones marked for deletion,so accidental bars are easily
remedied.

"Robert11" <> wrote in message
news:6OmdnYkyNO3zyl_eRVn-...
> Hi,
>
> Spam level has finally reached a point where I guess I will have to at
> least try to do something.
>
> Am considering Mailwasher, and also the anti-spam filtering offered by my
> broadband provider, Comcast.
>
> Using both is probably a bad idea, I would imagine.
>
> Which do you think I should go with, at least for an initial try of ?
>
> Thanks,
> Bob
>


Bob

If your ISP offers the option to 'mark' your emails that it considers to be
spam, then in combination with Mailwasher you can have quite a good spam
filtering system.

My ISP offers me the option to mark all emails it considers Spam with the
tag "[SPAM]" at the begining of the subject line on each affected email.

Then by setting a filter in Mailwasher to mark emails containing "[SPAM]" in
the subject line for deletion, I can quickly review my mailbox's contents,
adding and removing for deletion as required.

Cheers
Paul.