«

"Luke O'Malley" <> wrote in message
news:F5Rbg.1627$%...
>
> I have successfully blocked most of my spam. One problem remains.
> Normally I can specify a word in the body of the email, or something
> in the subject or sender. But . . . there are emails I receive
> where the text of the email seems to be in something like a text box
> so my spam filgter can't read it. Is there any way around this?


So what is a "text box"? Might that be a graphic image inside an
HTML-formatted e-mail? If so, nope, your e-mail client's rules cannot
search inside the graphic for words - because there are no words inside
a graphic (how you interpret images within the graphic as words does not
make them such). Your e-mail client may let you score or tag e-mails
that certain filetypes for attachments or MIME parts within the body -
but then you never bothered to mention WHICH e-mail client that you use
(so someone familiar with it could tell you if searching on MIME headers
within the body is possible with whatever e-mail program you happen to
use).

--
__________________________________________________
Post replies to the newsgroup. Share with others.
For e-mail: Remove "NIX" and add "#VN" to Subject.
__________________________________________________

Luke O'Malley wrote:

> I have successfully blocked most of my spam. One problem remains.
> Normally I can specify a word in the body of the email, or something
> in the subject or sender. But . . . there are emails I receive
> where the text of the email seems to be in something like a text box
> so my spam filgter can't read it. Is there any way around this?

Yes. Use additional filtering strategies that aren't words, IPs and
structures.

Filtering only on the words of a spambody will miss the items which
don't have any spammish words or word-like strings because the spamwords
are in a graphic only - not words.

SpamPal uses filtering for the IP addresses which source spam, which is
a completely different principle than spamstrings. It also uses regular
expressions on /structures/ of the mail which aren't spamstrings.


--
Mike Easter

Vanguard blabbered in 24hoursupport.helpdesk:

> but then you never bothered to mention WHICH e-mail client that you use

You fool.

--
Your mother was a poor waitress who got drunk with a baboon in an
inflatable dingy.

Luke O'Malley wrote:

[Please fix your quoting character. Those "-->" are not standard and
make your posts hard to read. ">" is the accepted character. Thanks for
your consideration.]

> -->

> I did not mention that I am using Mozilla Thunderbird, which allows
> me to kill IP addresses. This one spammer uses different IP
> addresses on each email. The from part is always different.

Practically all spam will come from different IP addresses and FROM:
addresses. Spammers (known to be stupid) are smart. They are relaying
their crap from the compromised computers of millions of clueless home
users, each of which has its own IP address. They also almost always
either use a victim's address in the FROM: or their spamming software
just makes up an address.

Trying to filter on IP or FROM is a worthless endeavour.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

Luke O'Malley wrote:
> "Mike Easter"

> -->SpamPal uses filtering for the IP addresses which source spam,

> I did not mention that I am using Mozilla Thunderbird, which allows
> me to kill IP addresses. This one spammer uses different IP
> addresses on each email. The from part is always different.

The way SP SpamPal works is by using the IP addresses which are found in
numerous spamsource db/s databases -- I don't 'manually' enter any IP
addresses like you are describing for Tbird. That won't work. Also,
ignore the From.

Also, the way you have your newsagent configured to both have short line
lengths as well as an unconventional cite mark of " -->" or "space dash
dash right single guillemet" instead of simply using the right single
guillemet like everyone else -- causes the lines which you cite to be
'chopped up' into very very ugly shortlines.

I recommend that you configure for linelengths somewhere around 72-74
and that you use the conventional > right single guillemet space for
your cite or "quotation" designator.


--
Mike Easter