«

I am now getting 6-10 pieces of spam a day through xtra.

What has happened, is brightmail no longer doing their spam filtering or
are they now just so overloaded with spam they can no longer cope ?

xtra used to be pretty damned good, now the are simply average as far as
I can tell.

"whoisthis" <> wrote in message
news:who-...
> I am now getting 6-10 pieces of spam a day through xtra.
>
> What has happened, is brightmail no longer doing their spam filtering or
> are they now just so overloaded with spam they can no longer cope ?
>
> xtra used to be pretty damned good, now the are simply average as far as
> I can tell.

Same experience here, averaging 50% of spam not identified.

Paul

PC wrote:
>>xtra used to be pretty damned good, now the are simply average as far as
>>I can tell.

> Same experience here, averaging 50% of spam not identified.

it's a "free" service... 50% aint bad

In article <who->,
on Sun, 25 Jul 2004 16:36:46 +1200, whoisthis wrote:

> I am now getting 6-10 pieces of spam a day through xtra.
>
> What has happened, is brightmail no longer doing their spam filtering or
> are they now just so overloaded with spam they can no longer cope ?
>
> xtra used to be pretty damned good, now the are simply average as far as
> I can tell.


I have been seeing the same thing, starting on or around Wednesday 21st.

It had been catching over 95% of spam for a month or more, and letting
through less than 5%. It is now catching an average of around 55%, and
letting through around 45%.


FYI, there is a thread in nz.general on the same topic ...

| Subject: xtra's spam program
| From: "geopelia"
| Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:25:41 +1200
| Newsgroups: nz.general
| Message-ID: <05XLc.3643$>


--
Cheers,
Ralph

Change is inevitable. Progress is optional.

Get Spampal. Its free and it works.

Has a whitelist so ppl u know can still send email

And a blacklist so u can blacklist 1/4, 1/2 of the
world. And blacklist entire ISPS for spamming.

It can also use wildcards (*@isp) so ISPS you
know that dont spam can still send emails to you.

The same goes for adding ISPS to the blacklist
Just type in *@isp and it blocks emails from
any person that originates from that ISP.

I use it it's great! Saves paying for it or getting it
for free when it doesnt even work!


"Ralph Fox" <> wrote in
message news:. co.nz...
> In article <who->,
> on Sun, 25 Jul 2004 16:36:46 +1200, whoisthis wrote:
>
> > I am now getting 6-10 pieces of spam a day through xtra.
> >
> > What has happened, is brightmail no longer doing their spam filtering or
> > are they now just so overloaded with spam they can no longer cope ?
> >
> > xtra used to be pretty damned good, now the are simply average as far as
> > I can tell.
>
>
> I have been seeing the same thing, starting on or around Wednesday 21st.
>
> It had been catching over 95% of spam for a month or more, and letting
> through less than 5%. It is now catching an average of around 55%, and
> letting through around 45%.
>
>
> FYI, there is a thread in nz.general on the same topic ...
>
> | Subject: xtra's spam program
> | From: "geopelia"
> | Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:25:41 +1200
> | Newsgroups: nz.general
> | Message-ID: <05XLc.3643$>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Ralph
>
> Change is inevitable. Progress is optional.
>

In article <ce2d7t$ij5$>, "Paul" <>
wrote:

> Get Spampal. Its free and it works.

so what, that means I have to download the spam to my machine, that
means it comes off my adsl datacap....useless.


>
> I use it it's great! Saves paying for it or getting it
> for free when it doesnt even work!

I prefer the ISP to do the filtering so I do not have to pay for it and
I do not have to use my datacap limits to download rubbish. That is why
spam is bad, the end user pays to recieve it.

Well thats the good thing about spampal. It deletes it from the server
before you even see it. It checks against
the blacklist. If the ISP is blacklisted, it deletes
every single email originating from that ISP.

Thats if u make a message rule to delete it from the
server. Which is a piece of cake.

BUT if you prefer the odd bit of spam, be my guest!


"whoisthis" <> wrote in message
news:who-...
> In article <ce2d7t$ij5$>, "Paul" <>
> wrote:
>
> > Get Spampal. Its free and it works.
>
> so what, that means I have to download the spam to my machine, that
> means it comes off my adsl datacap....useless.
>
>
> >
> > I use it it's great! Saves paying for it or getting it
> > for free when it doesnt even work!
>
> I prefer the ISP to do the filtering so I do not have to pay for it and
> I do not have to use my datacap limits to download rubbish. That is why
> spam is bad, the end user pays to recieve it.

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:01:20 +1200, whoisthis wrote:

> In article <ce2d7t$ij5$>, "Paul" <>
> wrote:
>
>> Get Spampal. Its free and it works.
>
> so what, that means I have to download the spam to my machine, that
> means it comes off my adsl datacap....useless.
>
>
>>
>> I use it it's great! Saves paying for it or getting it
>> for free when it doesnt even work!
>
> I prefer the ISP to do the filtering so I do not have to pay for it and
> I do not have to use my datacap limits to download rubbish. That is why
> spam is bad, the end user pays to recieve it.

But xtra simply mark it as spam and onward deliver it anyway. There is no
saving in bandwidth.

From a design point of view the filter should be on the end users machine.
While it is at the ISP it creates a bottleneck, and they have the onus of
20+ employess to manage it.

In article <u1nhjbhj3i5h$.>,
Warwick <> wrote:

> >
> > I prefer the ISP to do the filtering so I do not have to pay for it and
> > I do not have to use my datacap limits to download rubbish. That is why
> > spam is bad, the end user pays to recieve it.
>
> But xtra simply mark it as spam and onward deliver it anyway. There is no
> saving in bandwidth.

Well bugger, have I been doing it wrong for months..... go and read
about it, there are 3 options
a) Mark it as spam
b) Shift it into a spam folder (that you access with the webmail
access)
c) Delete it.

>
> From a design point of view the filter should be on the end users machine.
> While it is at the ISP it creates a bottleneck, and they have the onus of
> 20+ employess to manage it.

Well from a cost point of view its cheaper to delete it. AOL are
deleting over 1 billion spams a day, think of how many terrabytes of
storage that is and has to be backed up etc.

Warwick wrote:
> While it is at the ISP it creates a bottleneck, and they have the onus of
> 20+ employess to manage it.

20+ employees?
which ISP?